Twocubdad

Yeah, I suppose if your model for dealing with boys is a bull in a china shop, then you're probably right. If you think the only two answers are either yes or no, then you probably do see Scoutmasters who take seriously their obligation to mentor, advise and guide Scouts to help get the most out of the program as a bunch of egomaniacs who like riding heard over boys. But there is much more to working with youth than that.

NO FAIR! You can't change the rules now! To be perfectly honest with you, to a large degree, I came up with the patrol separation thing myself through trial an error. When my son and I came in to the troop, the usual custom was for all the patrols to pile into one of the massive summer camp troop campsites. The troop was divided into patrols for meals, but that only made things worse -- three patrols trying to share the same fire pit or picnic table to make different meals at once was a complete cluster flub. Although I took Wood Badge as a despised ruiner of real red-blooded Scouting (a Cubmaster), I was also an ASM at the time. My Wood Badge training did help me make the connection with the patrol method in two ways: First, the campsites where Wood Badge and IOLS training takes place was neatly divided into a series of patrol campsites joined by a common trail. Although the sites are no where near 300 feet apart, the campsites each are fairly well delineated and have their own picnic table and fire ring. Initially, I liked camping there simply because it was in a little-used corner of the camp and a nice, quiet location. It took some sweet-talking for the camp ranger to allow a mere Boy Scout Troop to use the hallowed ground of the training sites, but we pervailed. After a year or two of camping at various sites, it became obvious that haviing separate patrol sites was a huge advantage, regardless of the distance. The second contribution Wood Badge made to my education in the Patrol Method was -- and you're really going to hate this -- the team development theories. You know, the much maligned formin', stormin', normin' and performin' stuff. I have always worked for small, mom 'n pop operations so I hadn't previously been exposed to any of the corporate mumbo-jumbo. One thing which really caught my ear was how even minor distractions could derail a group on its way to becoming a high-performing team. This was right in line with what I was observing among our patrols. Honestly, Kudu, I think you were the source for the 300 foot distance between patrols. I've adopted that as a standard, mainly because being able to add "Baden-Powell said" lends some authority to principle. But it's not like we pace it off or anything. Usually we scatter the patrols as far out as practical.

CAUTION: HISTORICAL CONTENT I am a Wood Badge-trained Scoutmaster. I enjoyed Wood Badge and fully embrace the corporate leadership training I learned during the course. I teach leadership word games to the Scouts in the troop including the dreaded EDGE method. HISTORICAL CONTENT: Now, apparently for the first time in the history of the Internet, I will relate to you some of my experiences using the Patrol Method. We always try to space our patrols 300 feet apart. I say try because some of our favorite backpacking trips are in local state parks which have limited campsites. To the displeasure of our camp ranger, when we go to the council camp we take about a third of the campsites in order to space our patrols. I will recommend the 300' minimums to any troop. It solves a lot of discipline problems cause by non-patrol members wandering into other patrol sites and disrupting the patrol. It creates more of a sense of self reliance because patrols are more likely to solve their own problems rather than relying on borrowing forgotten supplies and equipment from other patrols. It also keeps the adults, who don't want to put the energy into walking the greater distances to the patrol sites, out of the patrols' hair. Down side is that sometimes we have some discipline problems. Without the idea that the adults are watching, some of the guys have done some fairly stupid things. But the bottom line is that if I can't trust you to camp out of sight of an adult, you're not in our troop. Patrol Hikes -- I can't say we've ever had a patrol go on a hike. The concept just doesn't appeal to my Scouts. They do, occasionally, organize patrol campouts. (Our patrols also do stuff like pizza and a movie or a pool party in the summer, but that doesn't count.) One patrol went camping week before last, in fact. One patrol had a bottle neck of boys wanting to complete their First Class cooking requirements, so the patrol organized a overnight trip to one of the boy's farm. Last year, we had a patrol campout weekend at the council camp. The adults stayed in our usual campsite, but the patrols were allowed to camp anywhere the wanted on the 1500-acre reservation. Each patrol had to select a pre-determined site and camp there. For some reason, one patrol wasn't able to find their site so they doubled up in the campsite with one of the other patrols. On the one hand, they rather wrecked the purpose of the patrol campout, but on the other I thought camping in a known and approved site with another patrol was a pretty responsible solution to the problem of not finding their own location. With the change in G2SS regarding patrols on unsupervised campout we're reassessing if we can do that again. How far away can the adults be and still "supervise" a patrol? 300 feet? A mile? We do have a similar patrol campout on the schedule, we just need to figure out how to execute it. Gee, I wonder if this is how Al Gore felt when he made Internet history?

dg, do you know of any policy which supports that? I don't recall anything in writing, but I would always defer to the Scoutmaster of the troop in which the Scout has his primary registration. I would think the unit which will award the merit badge should be the one involved in process start to finish. Philmont crews, summer camp staffs and jamboree troops don't award merit badges -- the Scouts' year-round troops do. That's where the process should reside. Do you think is appropriate for a provisional Scoutmaster to conduct a Scoutmaster conference? Sign an Eagle application? At our camp, even in the T-2-1 program, the program staff doesn't sign off on T-2-1 requirements but reports back to the full-time Scoutmaster what the Scout has accomplished. The SM can accept those requirements as complete or can ask the Scout to demonstrate the skills again. In the situation you describe, E732, the Scout's home Scoutmaster should be authorizing blue cards before the Scout begins working on the badge. I don't see where serving on camp staff changes that rule. If the kid wants to work on a MB, there is no reason he can't think through the process in sufficient time to get a blue card from his SM. If you are going to Philmont, it is totally forseeable that you may have the opportunity to work on backpacking merit badge. No reason a Scout can get the blue card from his regular SM before leaving. I don't recall if the Jamboree merit badge form had a space for SM pre-approval or not. I don't think so. I know we, as jamboree SMs, were not involved in the MB process at all, signing either in advance of taking a class and certainly Not after. Our instructions to the boys in our jambo troop was they needed to discuss it with their "real" SM and get his okay. For the boys going to jamboree from my "real" troop, I asked them to follow the same guidelines for MBs we have for summer camp, that is, we don't allow our guys to get certain required MBs at camp, like Communications, Personal Fitness or Management or the citizenship MB. But, if they had an opportunity to take one of those MBs with some really cool, like Communications with Tom Brokow or Personal Management with Warren Buffet, then go for it. But even in that case to please do me the favor of reviewing their work and getting a blue card signed off by one of our locally-registered counselors. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Go to the NEW Guide to Advancement and read section 4.2.3.4 regarding positions of responsibility. It discusses expectations for PORs and how to handle things when those expectations are not met.

You didn't ask this, but let's be clear that T-2-1 requirements are not on the table. If he is going up for Star, he's already earned those ranks. You can't go back and ask him to tie a bowline or recite the first aid for hypothermia. So you are dealing with the Star requirements. Were there any procedural issues with the merit badges? That is, did he have the blue cards signed by the SM in advance and use the counselor approved by the SM? Did a qualified counselor sign the blue card? If the MBs counselor signed the blue cards, the MBs are a done deal -- the troop doesn't get to second guess the counselor. You say he's very active, so he's put in his time. Doesn't sound like Scout Spirit is an issue. If he held the leadership position and completed the four months, it's too late now and try to claim he didn't do the job properly. That leaves the service project. Any problems there? Unless there are some serious problems with any of the above, I don't see anything in your pose which would give the troop standing for denying the Scout his advancement.

Run, don't walk in the other direction. NESA did a directory maybe 6 or 7 years ago. I got one thinking it would be nice for the troop to have access to a copy. They're junk. I once went through the directory looking for all the Eagles I knew locally and those from my old troop. Out of about 40 guys I looked for, I found maybe 10 or 12. The guys from my old troop I can understand -- their contact info may have been 30 years old. But anyone I know locally who is an Eagle I know from from their current affiliation with Scouting. I had even provided my brother's info and they still didn't bother to get him listed. This isn't any pretense of being a directory, it's just a glorified telephone solicitation list.

Interesting post Beav. My B-I-L, a computer guy, is a copyright nazi. Can't wait to send it to him. Last week I bought a couple new USGA topo maps for the troop. I make copies at a blueprint shop for the boys to uses and leave the originals at home. The new geek at the copy shop refused to copy them for fear of violating the copyright. "Dude, they are government douments." "Yeah, he said, but they may be copyrighted." The manager copied them for me.

Yep, you got it, Calico. Honestly, Fred, you're grossly over thinking this. There has never been a BSA policy intended to withstand this level of parsing. But if you insist.... Projects are considered part of a units program AND are treated as such ...." (emphasis, obviously, added). When the policy says, "Projects are considered part of a units program" I intrepret that to mean projects are considered part of a units program. The conjunction "and" makes the rest of the sentence independent of the first part. The rest of the paragraph serves only as a reminder of the unit's obligations. To a trained leader, all that should come as boilerplate as we should be well-versed that health, safety and youth protection policies always apply. Beav makes a good point, too. Presumably this kid didn't crawl from under a log on the last campout with an Eagle proposal in hand. Presumably he's been involved in troop leadership for some time and understand how the troop goes about planning an activity. If his first attempt to run a troop activity is his Eagle project, something is desparately wrong with the troop program. Different troops may handle the process diffrently, but the kid should have been involved enough to understand what that is.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

While its great for boys to be part of a patrol or troop, to somehow claims that doing so is a fundamental part I don't quite buy. Patrol Method? Youth Leadership? Adult Association? I know no one is arguing this, but if this is such a great thing we could save all sorts of time and money by dissolving units and letting all the boys become Lone Scouts. If it works in the margins it should work in the extremes. Lone Scouting needs to be a program of last resort for those with a real need, not a trap door for parents who just don't want the hassel of being in a unit.

Fred is trying to cut a path between two conflicting parts of the new G2A which, on the one hand, makes it the Scout's option whether or not he shares any details of his project implementation with the unit; but on the other hand now makes Eagle project work sessions official troop activities. There are so many other ways to get to the destination, this is a path we never really need to walk. We've had multiple threads on how to avoid all this and right now I don't have the time or inclination to rewrite it all. Bottom line for our troop will be that we have an expectation that our Eagle candidates with complete the Final Plan portion of the EP workbook, submit it to the troop and cooperated with the PLC and troop leaders to organize his work days. True, a Scout now has the right not to do that. He also has the right to call my mother names and talk bad about my dog, if he so chooses. But don't expect that I'm going to smile and sign his Eagle application while he does.

I don't see that anyone is arguing against a legitimate Lone Scouting program. I agree with Moose that it seems a bit anachronistic today, but if a Scout truely has no opportunity to be in a unit, then it's a good thing. I am really disappointed -- but not in the least surprised -- that national has made homeschooling a reason to avoid joining a unit. They should just cut to the chase add "10. Any other dang reason you can think of, just send your $15." Membership in a den, pack, troop or patrol is the core of Scouting. If a family doesn't have a desire to be in a unit -- despite circumstance which may prevent it -- they shouldn't be in Scouting. The folks running the Lone Scouting program should have as their top prioriy to move every Lone Scout into a unit as soon as possible. I get there are legit reasons for the program, but I see a lot of the stuff on the list as a cop-out. For most of the reasons listed, membership in one or multiple units with some flexibility on attendance and sign-offs would be much better. I've had boys make Eagle while away at boarding school. I've had a boy with multi-state joint custody arrangements attend summer camp with a troop from his dad's area. In the examples posted here, Lone Scout seems like a quick fix for some DE or registrar who just wanted a heliparent out of their hair regardless of the integrity of the program.

Ultimately, I think that's absolutely the way to go, MIB. No reason the same people shouldn't see the process start to finish. Otherwise I think you guys are over-thinking this. All that bad stuff may be technically possible, but not highly likely. And how do you think it will go when the SM is sitting with the Scout during his appeal, saying, "No, I approved both his proposal, was present during the work and approved the final project. I am satisfied the requirement has been met."

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, Fred. I think you're using an incredibly minor point of the G2A to remove an element of the program many units use very successfully and without unduly burdening the boys. I don't see where a more formal approach to SMCs and BORs is defeatest in the least. It's just a different way of doing things and an opportunity for the Scout to learn a different lesson. Nor do I believe the quality of the feedback the unit receives is changed by the methods which lead up to the conference/board. Aside from a philosophical perspective, there are a number of reasons for making the board and the procedures for them more formal. In my troop, I don't do SMCs during troop meetings. Troop meetings have instruction going on, time to meet with your patrol and activities with your patrol. Taking time to work on individual advancement issues takes away from the patrol. SMCs take place before the troop meeting, another day after school or on a campout. Our advancement chairman isn't present at any of these (although if we're meeting before the troop meeting, she will likely be at the troop meeting.) At the conclusion of the conference, I hand the scout a slip of paper with his name, the rank he's going for checked and my signature. The slip has every possible means of contacting the AC listed and I usually conclude with "you know who Mrs. X is right? Jeremy's mom? She she will be talk to her and she'll be glad to set up your board of review." Occasionally, I'll conduct a SMC for a scout who is NOT ready to advance. Maybe he's close and we go ahead and do the SMC on a campout because it's convenient. Or maybe we sit down for the conference and discover he hasn't completed all the requirements. I continue with the conferece and sign his handbook since we have, in fact, conferred. I won't give him a BOR slip until he comes back to me and shows me all the requirements are complete. We have a system that works for our volunteers and Scouts. That's good enough for me.

"Thank you, Mrs. Smith, but I really need to hear from you son." "Mrs. Smith, please let your son answer the question. He's doing a fine job and doesn't need any help." "I don't want to be rude, Mrs. Smith, but I've asked twice for you to please allow your son to answer my questions without your input. You are here as an observer, not a participant. If you insist I'm going to end the meeting" "Billy, I apologize but I am not going to be able to continue and approve your project. I will refer this to the Advancement Chairman and someone will be in touch to let you know how we will procede. You shouldn't worry, I'm sure the adults will be able to solve this problem and will get you approved, just not today. Again, I apologize to you. Good bye."

E92 -- you handled the bozos exactly right. They didn't have a leg to stand on and knew it. I wonder what would have happened if you had just hung your head and mumbled something about learning from your mistakes.... Unfortunately, most kids in those situations have been so well-trained to defer to adults they won't stand up for themselves. I suppose that's why the new workbook and G2A is so explicit with the rights and expectations for Scouts and parents. I'm not sure if I'm totally understanding you, but be clear that their IS a pre-approval by the district/council for projects. The difference now is the projects are approved at the conceptual level, not in the obscene amount of detail which many councils required in the past (mine included). The challenge to the review committees is to get enough detail to understand the scope of the project so their conceptual approval sticks and is confirmed by the EBOR. "I'm going to do something to improve a park" shouldn't be approved. "I'm going to build five picnic tables for Smith Park" should (assuming the cmte agrees five tables is a sufficient project -- I would). At the end of the day, if the kid builds five tables, there should be no question. Unlike your BOR, they don't get to second-guess and say you should have built six. Unless the Scout totally goes off reservation and builds only one bench or there were something grossly wrong with the leadership or process (like his dad hired somebody to build the tables) it will be very difficult for an EBOR to decline a project and have that sustained on appeal. JMH -- difference between an Eagle project and your "Fetch the Rock" game is with the Eagle project, the boss/Scoutmaster is available to help you look for the rock if the Scout wants him to. All the angst I see over the new process -- both from those concerned that someone "will get away with something" and those concerned 18-y.o. candidates will be turned down without recourse -- comes from the idea a Scout may now take his conceptually-approved proposal and execute the project with no further input, supervision or approval from the unit or council. That is the Scout's option. But if he does so, he's taking his heart in his own hands with the chance the EBOR will turn him down. I'm telling my Scouts that if they will keep me in the loop, work through the "final plan" section of the work book and take the advice and assistance of the troop, then if their EBOR turns them down, I'll walk through hot coals with them to get it approved. If not, if they want to exercise their option and not work with the troop leaders, then you are correct, they better hope they come back with the right rock.

Many of the examples you posted, fred, are clearly over the top. Others, however, are reasonable expectations in line with the program. Obviously they suffer from some over-the-top bureaucratese (perhaps penned by an under-employed member of the Bretheren, eh Beav?). For example, Star and Life service projects do require pre-approval of the Scoutmaster. While I'm less formal with the Star projects, for Life I ask the Scouts to give a little more thought to their project and come to me with a written project proposal -- no form involved, just two or three hand written sentences is enough. Adding to the requirement? No. The requirement says the project must be approved by your Scoutmaster. This is how the guys in my troop obtain my approval. I disagree with the whole notion that we shouldn't ask the boys to take responsibility for arranging boards of review and Scoutmasters' conferences. The skills involved -- approaching an adult and making a request, setting and keeping an appointment, preparing for the meeting -- are not only important life skills we should be teaching our Scouts, but they are EXACTLY the same skills and procedures we require for working with a merit badge counselor. In fact, those goals are an important part of the merit badge program. Why should they be specifically excluded from another part of the program? Personally, if I'm required to know exactly where every Scout stands and to know when he's eligible for a conference and/or review, and for ME to be the one to approach the Scout to arrange the conference/review, we may never have another Scout advance again. It's just not in my constitution to keep up with that level of detail. With crossover next week, we'll be over 70 Scouts. I'll tell you flat-out, if that's the job description they've got the wrong guy. Interesting bit of feedback -- The Scout Shop finally has hard copies of the new advancement guide so I bought a couple for the troop. We had a round of BORs last night and while the board volunteers were gathering, I gave them the books and mentioned there are a few thing in the policy which are different from the troop's procedures. They asked for an example and with this thread in mind I explained that boys may not be expected to schedule their own review. After a very brief discussion, one of the moms piped in and summed up the feeling of the group: "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I WANT my son to responsible. My younger son is much better at dealing with adults than his brothers (who are not scouts) and I really think it's because he's had to learn how to talk to adults in Scouts." From her lips to God's ear. And keep in mind these aren't a bunch of curmudgeonly old Scoutmasters who spend their time on online Scouting forums and thinking of roadblocks to throw in front of the boys. These are our paying customers, the parents who foot the bills and send their boys to Scouts to learn these very skills.

While I am generally a big fan of the new advancement policies, I would have to label this as another example of national taking a least common denominator approach to policy. I'm sure somewhere, sometime some troop has created a Byzantine process for requesting a Board of Review with the intent of making it difficult for boys to complete their advancement. But this silly rule, which can't possibly apply to more that a fractional percentage of troops, takes away from the vast, vast majority of troops the ability to teach another small lesson in personal responsibility and interpersonal skills. Is it really a burden, is it really adding a requirement, to ask the Scout to make a phone call, send an email or walk across the room and schedule an appointment? Following this logic, calling a Scout forward to be presented his new rank badge is also adding a requirement. No doubt the troop leaders should be required to walk across the room and deliver the badge to the Scout at his seat.

I read nothing in the new policy which changes the standard for the actual projects (not to be confused with the project paperwork). Yes, officially now, you could lead two other people for one hour and call it a project -- but you better cure the common cold or invent a better light bulb or something.... Projects still need to be of sufficient scope for the Scout to demonstrate leadership. They also need to provide a service to the community. If some Scouts and leaders believe the actual project has been lessened or dumbed-down they are mistaken. During the change-over to the new model it is important that unit leaders and district/council advancement committees hold the line to make sure that assumption doesn't become reality.

How about the advice my son's first-teacher gave us: "You don't do everything they say about us and we won't belive everything they say about you."

OKAY FOLKS. ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM TIME. Here's what we know from two separate threads: 1. This woman's membership has been revoked by her council. The revocation had been upheld by region and she's now waiting to hear her final appeal from national. 2. Her CO has banned her from any Scout activity and makes her wait in the car and text her son's when it's time to leave. 3. Her not-quite 18-year-old son has moved in with his Scoutmaster and his wife, apparently over her objections. 4. The son has a troubled past, including a stint in juvenile detention. AND HER CONCERN HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT HER SON DESERVES TO BE AN EAGLE SCOUT?? ELEPHANT TIME: Either MBSM is a troll and having great time on our nickel, OR, this is a deeply, deeply troubled family which needs serious professional help, not worrying about the finer policy points of a comparatively unimportant youth program. (That is as politely as I can phrase that.) Clearly, there is nothing we on the forums we can do to get this lady the help she needs. If anyone recognizes this situation and can offer some real-world help, I would encourage them to do so. But otherwise I would hope the rest of us will quit feeding the elephant, do the decent thing and quit responding. This is not a rational situation and rational discussion is going to have no affect. Otherwise I encourage the moderators to close both threads.

This is wholly inappropriate. You really need qualified help, not advice from strangers on a on-line forum.

The Awards!

Are you kidding? Is the kid rank in Boy Scouts really the issue here?

That's? It?