Twocubdad

We use unit boards with one district rep. I think it works well and out Scouts are well-served by the system. Boards are scheduled at everyone's convenience and the board members generally have watched the Eagle candidates grow up through the program for years. Yes, to a degree, the boards can become somewhat of a victory lap. But in some cases the board members have conducted previous boards with the Scouts. As such, they often follow through with issues and conversations over a matter of years. I think that gives them an insight with the Scout a board of strangers wouldn't have.

We built the one the adults use. The troop always used plastic tubs, not chuck boxes. The idea was to build a prototype for the adult to see if there was any interest among the patrols. There wasn't. Our adult chuch box is much bigger than you would want for patrols -- takes two mules and a jackass to move. One cool thing is it has two large pneumatic wheels and handles so it roll through the woods like a wheelbarrow (does that violate the new health and safety rules?). It was designed by taking all the stuff we wanted to carry and stacking it in a approximate pile, then measuring the pile. We tend to carry a lot of spare parts and program materials the patrols don't routinely need. Boxes for patrols would be considerably smaller. You're probably going to get a lot of responses that chuck boxes lock you into "plop camping" (a derisive term the folks who like to backpack use for those who don't). Your troop should do what you like. My guys have figured out to take the backpacking stoves on backpacking trips; the two-burner camp stoves on front-country trips and neither when we do wilderness survival.

Nationally, how many plumbers vs. the number of BSA professionals? Which is why I think there may be some merit to a mention for non-profit careers, but not specific to BSA.

I didn't intend to post that specific page, but the link to the whole insignia guide. Sorry. But the more pertinent page is at http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/06F.aspx This list all the odds and ends patches you mention. Otherwise, the right pocket is for just about any other activity patch the Scout wishes -- summer camp, camporees, even troop activities. Personally, I'm good with a Scout putting any Scout badge there he wants. I'd think someone would have to be wrapped pretty tight to complain about a Scout's choice of temporary badges.

You've got an idea in search of a problem. Since our mission isn't to develop Scouting professionals or assistant Scoutmasters, I don't really see losing people when they turn 18 as a problem. I'm perfectly happy to see my Scouts move on from Scouting and apply the skills and principles they've learned in their lives and careers. That's our mission. The way our culture is set up -- that 19-y.o.s tend to leave home for college and may or may not return to start careers and families -- works counter to the model of Scouts moving up into adult leadership roles. And frankly, I'd discourange any of my gung-ho Boy Scouts from going immediately into a career in Scouting. If they think they're going to become professional Boy Scouts they're in for a terrible disappointment. My recommendation would be for the young man to get a business degree related to the non-profit sector, go to work for another non-profit for awhile, then come back to Scouting professionally, if that's what he wants to do. I don't think you merit badge idea fits the program, either. WAAAAY to specific. Maybe an optional requirement related to non-profits in the American Business MB, but there's no way I can see this making the cut.

Those guys are smoking stuff. They really think middle school and high school kids are going to text their buddies at home and brag about being at Boy Scout camp? It's really humorous that these old farts from national think they can make Scouting cool. It's like watching your grandmother trying to rap.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/06.aspx

Yep, time to let go. Your boy is out of the troop and it sounds like most of the membership is (hopefully) moving on to another or a new troop. Based on my training with the new appeals process, it seems likely to me that his project will be approved. As you describe it, the SM's behavior is at best childish. I don't see a YP issue here either. But the folks at council are aware of his behavior by way of the advancement/appeals process. My advice to you is to keep this as positive for your son as possible. Don't let him -- and don't you -- get wrapped around the axle prosecuting this. Adults make mistakes and get off track, but make sure your son sees that other adults are there to make it right. Ultimately, the system works. You don't mention how old your boy is, but try to get him involved in a new unit. Don't let this be his last experience in Scouting.

I dont' like this sort of stuff. Don't care for the message it sends. Push ups strike me as way too variable. Some kids will do push ups all afternoon and just grin at you. Others will lay there in the dirt, frustrated and humiliated at being unable to do any and for being called out in front of the troop. Praise in public, criticize in private, huh? Making perps do extra clean up duty or picking up trash causes other problems, too. The PL has an equitable duty roster prepared for the weekend. So when Billy is assigned KP duty for some misdeed, what does that say to the kid who got out of the work? And what about the poor schmuck who did his duty be cause it was his turn? What is he being punished for? We don't have tic-tack punishments like this. Truth be told, I'm not sure what sort of infractions I would assign KP or pushups for. My theory is we dont' punish Scouts, we teach them to behave themselves so punishment becomes unnecessary. If someone's behavior is so far out of line that punishment is necessary, they go home. I don't care for singing for lost stuff, either. Doesnt' seem Scoutlike to me. Courtesy dictates that I cheerfully return the things I find to their owners. Last year we had a rash of stuff "stolen" from the troop. Really dumb thieves, too, 'cause everything they stole they put in the lost and found or on the picnic tables. So I asked the SPL to assemble the troop earlier than usual. I then asked the guys who had stuff stolen to please describe the item and it's last known location -- which they very eagerly did. One by one, I reached into the lost and found tub and tossed the "stolen" item to them. That led to a short discussion of A Scout is Thrifty and the need to take care of your stuff. Following that was a longer session of general house cleaning and organizing. Funny thing was this year one of the new Scouts (who who wasn't in the troop for that lesson) came to me very upset that someone had "stolen" something from his tent. One of the older guys stepped between us, as if to protect the kid from me, put his hand on the kid shoulder and said, "Dude, trust me, it ain't stolen. I bet if we clean up your tent we'll find it. C'mon I'll help you." Learning had occurred.

Your stepson wouldn't listen to you and it's the troop's fault? I guess it's their fault if he doesn't brush his teeth either? Just before summer camp I got rid of several boxes of lost and found stuff. I had been pushing some of the stuff around for better than a year. Multiple pleas to both Scouts and parents to claim their junk including two pairs of hiking boots, a sleeping bag, a really heavy duty duffle, a bike helmet -- some nice stuff. I don't understand how the heck a Scout "loses" an expensive item and the parent makes no effort to claim it. If we make multiple announcements that the lost and found will be dumped in 3, 2, 1 weeks, I don't understand why every parent isn't going through the pile. Seems to me the parents are just as indifferent as the boys. Their loss, Goodwill's gain. I'll bet the Scoutmaster is wondering how you let you stepson leave a nice tent in the trailer for six months without claiming it. And I thought you had made it clear here that you don't put any time or resources into Scouting anyway. So no loss, huh?

You Brits are all socialists anyway, right? Why should we be surprised? (Just kidding, it was a joke, just a joke, really, don't write. Here, Lots of little smiley faces: :) :) :) )

YOU aren't going to fix this. The Scouts will. After lying awake for two miserable nights in the heat and humidity with a bad sunburn, the Scout will remember his sunscreen. After arriving at camp and learning his two extra tubs of junk were left at home because there wasn't room in the trailer AND that for safe-keeping Mr. Smith took his video games home with him and, oh-by-the-way, Mr. Smith is in Texas for three weeks and won't be able to return the video game until sometime in August, he will leave it home next time. After the Scout gets busted for wearing flip-flops and has to wear the same pair of hot hiking boots all week, he'll bring a second pair of appropriate shoes next time. After spending two on his bunk holding a flashlight in his teeth writing Citizenship MB essays and letters while his mates are at the shotgun range, free swim or munching popsicles at the trading post, he'll make up his own mind about his schedule next year. (And if it's a problem, why isn't the SM helping the Scout make better selections?) And not to cause a hijack, but what's the problem with soft drinks? Our camp sells them at the trading post. I suppose the main reason our guys don't take them to camp is the lack of refrigeration. I'm surprised my older guys haven't figured out they sell ice at the trading post. You may want to consider one reason you have so many folks ignoring your rules is that the troop seems to have a lot or rules and/or expectations. Not every hill is worth dying for.

Here's a start, from one of my heros, Sen. Sam Ervin. I actually called home from the national jamboree in '73 to get updates on the Watergate hearings. I forget the topic, but he was questioning John Ehrlichman about something and Ehrlichman asked him so Senator, how do you know such-and-such. Ervin got a bit flustered and yelled at Ehrlichman, "Because I can understand the English language. It's my mother tongue."

Okay, apparently sarcasm isn't working, so let me get to the point: ARE YOU KIDDING! And as E92 would add, yes I'm screaming because this is REDICULOUS! Geez, people, do we have no standards any more? How flippin' hard is it to find a flag pole and spend one den meeting letting the boys run the flag up and down? And if you can't find a flag pole (really?) buy a 10' closet rod at Lowe's and make one. Or throw a rope over a tree limb. Why do you suppose the requirement stipulates an OUTDOOR ceremony? What's the difference between indoors and outdoors? Hmm? It's the physical skill of clipping on a flag right side up, raising it without letting go of the halyard then tying it off. Then reversing the process and folding the flag. Now that you've done what you volunteered to do and TAUGHT THE BOYS A SKILL, then for the next couple meetings you let the Scouts take turns serving on the color guard until everyone completes the requirement. Depending on your den size, if one group raises the flag and another lowers it you can complete the requirement in one meeting. Or what the heck, you do two or three flag ceremonies in one meeting! If you're going to shave the requirement that close, nothing stipulates where, when, how often or in front of whom a ceremony has to take place. Calling standing there and watching "participation" is flat out dishonest and is the beginning of all the problems we have with advancement. It teaches the boys that the requirements don't really matter -- that we can pretend the requirements say any dang thing we want them to. Participate means stand there and watch, active mean be registered and serve means wear a patch on your sleeve. And kids understand and pay attention to this crap. They know sitting in the stands watching a ball game isn't "participation." They watched, they didn't participate. No one gets a varsity letters by watching a ballgame. But apparently we present Scout badges for it. You guys who want to complain about what "national" is doing to the advancement program, well here -- look in this mirror. (And Howarthe, please don't take this personally. You asked a reasonable question. I can't believe the reponses. Thanks to SSScout for a real answer.)

Cool. Tuesday night I think I'll announce that we've decided advancement is too much effort so we're going to drop it in favor of the other seven methods. Think how much more camping and leadership training we can get in if we don't bother with merit badges or rank requirements. Other troops blow off uniforming, patrols and youth leadership, right? I'll let you know how it goes (and who the new Scoutmaster will be).

Cool. Now I can say I've participated in the NFL playoffs, NBA games with Michael Jordan and Larry Bird and participated in the Coca-Cola 600!

Agreed.

I intended to add that I hope national keeps the cost of The Summit low. It defeats the purpose of having a nearby HA base if national increases it's pricing and eats away at the savings on transportation. And while I absolutely agree the outdoors program is the core of the program, I think we need to be careful about marketing the HA programs. It would be tempting and fairly easy to make Scouting look like a Mountain Dew commercial -- in 30 seconds a helicopter drops you and your mountain bike atop El Capitan .... Nothing about the year of troop meetings and planning to get there. We need to remember the outdoors program is a means to an ends. A big part of the program is developing within the Scouts the ability to plan and lead these activities. This means a lot of simple weekend or day trips with the two week HA trip only every year or two. If we sell Scouting as biking down El Capitan every weekend, we clearly aren't going to be able to deliver. Nor to I think we want to. We're not Outward Bound, a camping club or a guide service. I fear that BSA is already expanding beyond the means of most units to deliver on the programs they are selling. We're a big troop and have a lot of adults with the ability to deliver a lot of programming. We've got certified shooting sports and climbing guys. But it's looking like I've got to send someone to aquatics school or we're going to have to drop our annual canoe trip. Right now, I don't have a prospect for anyone who can/is willing to do that. If we're going to sell these Mountain Dew experiences, BSA is going to have to rethink it's model for delivering them. Expecting a troop of 12 boys and three adults to have this level of expertise is unrealistic. And did't mention paying for it all.

I guess those are the situations the new Eagle guidelines are trying to avoid by requiring money be held by the beneficiary or the troop. But you can easily turn that around where the Scout gives the money to the beneficiary, buys the materials then discovers the beneficiary is slow to pay. Or their treasurer wasn't in on the project and won't pay. Or spent the money on something else. Or what happens if the Scout started the project, totally screwed it up and ruined several hundred dollars worth of materials? Or just gives up and dumps a pile of lumber off at the beneficiary which has no use for it? Or. Or. Or. I understand the reasoning behind channeling all donations and money through the beneficiary, but things were sure easier when the Scout kept all the money in an envelope and the beneficiary was "given" a finished project. Ours was one of those councils which required massive EP proposals. One of their primary justifications for doing so was to guarantee success of the projects, mainly to avoid the PR hit a failed project created with the beneficiary organization. I wonder what the real incidence of this is? How often do Scouts raise money in the name of a beneficiary then fail to deliver? How much money are we really talking? 'Cause this strikes me as another case of the admin types creating another bureauracy affecting 100% of those involved in order to fix a problem encountered in a very small number of cases. (I know there's a word for that, but I can't think of what it is.) This probably goes back to the overall discussion of advancement policy, but should it be a basic principle of policy writing that policies which address particular problems should burden only those who create the problems? So instead of re-writing national policy for 50,000 Eagles annually, could local councils not solve this by having our own little TARP fund for failed EPs? I'm not talking about another big, hairy program here, but just make it known among council and district advancement and Eagle committee folks that before a failed project becomes a big issue, resources are available to square the deal with the beneficiary. Anyone who has been in Scouting for much time knows who to call to solve these little problems -- a Scout who needs a uniform or money to go to camp -- or for an Eagle project. In your example, Moose, I would sure hope that before things get ugly, someone will step in and fix things. (And, yes, I know it's the Scout's problem, but before he gives the troop or council a black eye....)

Agreed, SP, which is why I think the Summit is a good idea. From here, more than half the cost of Philmont is getting there. Finding adults who can make the commitment to the full, two week trek is tough. I'm looking forward to being able to drive to The Summit in a few hours, doing a couple days of whitewater or climbing, then heading home. By the way, we've got a crew at Seabase now. Absolutely the driving force behind the trip was our SPL. He's a SCUBA diver and decided he wanted to do Seabase so he put the trip together.

I'll save the rest of you the half hour of reading this ct Strategy -- To plan stuff Goal -- Have a plan Action -- Plan in place. This goes on for 27 pages. In all 27 pages there is very little which will affect the unit. That Mr. Excitement in the video somehow gets from this that they're going to rewrite all the advancement requirements, scout and leader handbooks and "hundreds" of other program documents is a bit of a head scratcher. Bottom line -- if you're counting on this "report" to tell you anything about upcoming changes in the program, you're going to be disappointed.

Well that was 11 minutes of my life I'll never get back. They've finished the assement phase and are almost done with design. So what were the results of the assessment? What are the strength? Weaknesses? What programs to Scouts want? Who wants to bet they're wondering why no one is submitting anything to their comments box? Comment on what? Another High Priest from national making sure none but the chosen have access the the sacred rites. If they tell us what they're thinking, they may get folks actually responding, providing input and demanding meaningful change. But if the progress is kept under wraps and shrouded in corporate speak, they can spring it on everyone as a done deal in a few years.

Chartering thousands of units across the country which are delivering the promise of Scouting to youth.

Lines at the waterfront have been cut down by pre-camp swim tests. Our camp will also let boys do swim tests during any free swim during the week. So if a Scout doesn't need a swim test for a particular reason, he just sits it out. Later in the week, if he decides to go for a swim, he can do the test then. Medical checks are now the bottle neck. Last year, for some dumb reason, our troop was assigned to one medical officer -- all 60-something of us. Although the other MOs had finished with their troops, this ding-a-ling refused to let any of them see our Scouts. But that wasn't a problem this year and I think we had four different MOs seeing our Scout. The difficulty now is that the med forms and the check-in procedures seem to be a moving target. What the camp is currently requiring and the check-in requirements wasn't clearly communicated up front. We could have had our ducks in a row if we had a check list of the things the MOs are looking for up front -- a suggestion I made on my camp evaluation.

The problem, John, is the guidlines are working counter to just that. I think standardizing the ranks to ensure they keep their meaning is great. Unfortunately, the standards national is instituting is precisely what is taking the meaning OUT of the ranks. And you provided the perfect example. When you sat down with that Scout to negotiate a solution to his POR issue, he could have taken the national policy and told you to go suck eggs. YOU added to the requirement (gasp!) by requiring the Scout to hold his POR for nine months. (I'm waiting for our friends here to clean you clock for such an aggregious violation of policy.) Of course I would say you subtracted from the requirement by only requiring him to really do the job for three. But we all know which side of that argument the national advancement folks come down on. In our troop, from time to time we have the sort of negotiations you describe. Your approach is absolutely the right way to handle a non-performing POR. You coach the kid, you work with him, you let him know what he's doing wrong and you give him the opportunity to do it right. But you don't give him credit for the job until he earn it. National's direction to remove him AND give him credit for time served not doing the job is NONSENSE! I can't imagine a worse way to handle the situation. Nothing is gained, nothing is learned. The great sin which national wants to cure -- rogue, ogre Scoutmasters sitting at the end of the 6 month term giving thumbs up or down to PORs -- is poor Scoutmastering, but it is better than national's supposed "cure". Clearly allowing a Scout to coast through a POR for 6 months with no coaching or corrective action then telling him at the end he's not getting credit is a crappy way to do business. As bad as that may be, I'm willing to bet most SMs have some justification for denying credit for the POR. And I promise you, in most cases, in their hearts of hearts, the boys KNOW the sort of job they did or didn't do. In many cases it the PARENTS who refuse to accept that Dear Sweet Thing did a poor job or no job and push the issue. I'll also bet the truely out-of-control SM who arbitrarily approves or rejects PORs are out there, but I further bet they are very rare. So let the advancement folks do their damn jobs and deal them. And that's my real suspicion in all this that national advancement folks don't want to or dont' have the resources to deal with those parents or the truely out-of-control SMs. So they've created this cockamamy policy which totally cuts the legs out from under the vast majority of good Scoutmasters and local advancement folks like JohnP, who REALLY KNOW THEIR SCOUTS, want to deliver a great program and help boys become upstanding young men.