Twocubdad

Skeptic posted, "I suspect that a large percentage denigrating NESA already have not even bothered to actually look at the NESA site, or make the effort to find the possibilities it offers." Maybe it is a high percentage, but it's not 100%. I used to refer my Scouts to the NESA site as it offered the Eagle forms in a variety of formats, including Word. That's since been taken down, although in fairness the main advantage of the Word file was one could save the file and come back to it, a capability PDF now has. And as a matter of fact, before posting this morning, I went to the site, just to see if there were something there I had overlooked. There wasn't. After a bit of looking, I finally found the organization's mission, which is "to identify Eagle Scouts and provide a manpower resource to local councils." Look, I am skeptical, but still here to be convinced. We've got scholarships, but I'm not sure how that supports the mission. And we have the database, which in my experience is maybe 30-40% accurate. And unless you're taking about the 100 bucks I personally shelled out to buy the directory, Clemlaw's post is the first I have ever heard of anyone having access to the data. Are there benefits I'm missing? Over the years I've sent several hundred dollars to NESA. I have been disappointed in value received. I now choose to spend my money elsewhere. But opinions vary.

If you're in Scouts because you think Eagle will look good on a college application, quit. Stay home and spend the time studying. Good grades look even better.

I got a free, three-year NESA membership a few years ago when I purchased the Eagle directory. First of all, the directory is garbage. One rainy afternoon I went through it looking up as many Eagles as I could remember. Only about a third were included. Among the missing was my brother, whose name I submitted to the directory folks. During those three years I never received anything from NESA, zero, zip, zilch, nada. No magazine, nothing. Like a lot of folks, my brother and I chipped in and gave a cousin a life membership when he earned Eagle a few years ago. We though that would be a way he could stay in touch over the years until he was ready to get involved, maybe with his own sons. But as they seem to have an incredibly poor ability to keep up with their own members, then what's the point? So I hear you, that maybe I should look at this as a contribution to a scholarship fund. That's it? What am I missing here?

Can someone share with the group the value/benefit of being a NESA member? (Okay, you're right. It's a loaded question.)

And far from not disagreeing, SR, I will absolutely go along with that. In fact, one of the minor comments from an appeals committee member was that had the Scout chosen to attend troop meetings anytime in the 30 month period, he would have had more than ample opportunity to know where he stood and to take on additional PORs. (Cue angelic voices and heavenly rays of light.) SP -- Don't get too wound up with the spreadsheet thing. It was something two advancement chairmen ago did one time and has never been maintained or updated. I only mentioned it to show that the kid in the story had been given every possible opportunity. At the time I thought it to be overkill myself. I certainly don't recommend it to anyone. And I'm not equating not getting Eagle with a fatal accident. Rather that comment was in the context of not passively allowing a Scout to fail when, as SR540 notes, a casual, friendly bit of encouragement could set him up for success rather than failure.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I won't disagree with you, SR540. But I think there is a balance to be found. Our old advancement chairman had a spreadsheet with a series of "Last Date to Start ABC" and "Last Day to Complete XYZ." It was on the bulletin board in the scout house and available if anyone was interested, but it wasn't like he chased kids around with it. I do believe it is important that this not become a game of gotcha, either. A Scout is both Friendly and Helpful. In the normal course of mentoring a young man, I believe it is appropriate to mention pending deadlines now and again. In my ordeal outlined above, my first conversation with the Scout about his POR took place during a conference to review his Eagle project. After going through the workbook, I said, okay, now let's talk about your leadership positions... I believe that was wholly appropriate. On the other hand, I don't think I would have been fulfilling my responsibility to the Scout if I had waited until inside six months and said, oh by the way time ran out last month. A little bit of it is defensive Scouting, too. Had I not given the Scout clear, documented directions, the troop probably would not have been sustained on appeal. In your situation, if you wait until the last minute to remind the Scout he has to complete all 20 nights after the issue date on the blue card, you're asking for a huge headache. You may get one anyway, but I think you are in a more defensible position -- not to mention on the higher road -- if you've communicated your expectations with the lad along the way. Again, balance. That doesn't mean you have to powder his butt for him, but I wouldn't remain silent knowing the fellow is going to walk off a cliff, either.

Judging the leadership of the candidate is not the benefactor's responsibility. Unless they have prior Scouting experience, most folks would be totally off-base in judging what an Eagle candidate should and should not be doing. OldScout's situation is a good example. Most folks out there in the community have an expectation that the SM is responsible for the Scouts and would see it as wholly appropriate for the SM to be the primary point of contact. The beneficiary's role is more of that of the consumer of the Eagle project. It is their responsibility to see that the specifications in the proposed project are satisfactory to them and that the completed project meets those specifications.

I had that conversation once which resulted in a bloody appeal process I've written about in the past. The Scout earned Life then took a 2.5 year break from the troop. Started coming back a couple months after his 17th birthday. He was lacking a position of responsibility, a fact which I discussed several time over a number of months. Finally, about 5.5 months from his 18th BD(I was willing to spot him the two weeks), I flat-out told him he had to get with the SPL THAT NIGHT and start a POR or he would not be an Eagle Scout. He supposedly became a Troop Guide, sat shooshing the new scout patrol the rest of that meeting and the following week. He quit coming after that. The Scout's position was that he had been appointed Troop Guide prior to his two-year hiatus, and had served in the position for over two years (even though he never attend a meeting in that time.) About two months later I got a call from his MOTHER saying he was completing college applicatons and wanted to know what the timeline was "on this Eagle thing." Funny how college apps tend to bring clarity to these situations. I met her and the Scout the following night broke the "news" to them. It was ugly. The mom cried and said she couldn't believe a I could "give up on a child" and was consequently unfit to be a Scout leaders. Later that night, during the troop meeting, the dad showed up to let me know what a son-of-a-b**** I was. To my knowledge that was the only time he had ever been to a troop meeting and only the second time I had ever laid eyes on the man. Anyway, lessons learned: -- Have these conversations soon and often. The first conversation I had with the Scout about a POR was 9 or 10 months out. He had plenty of time to fix things. At the time we had a lot of older guys facing their 18th BD and our advancement chairman was doing a very good job of charting how much time each of those guys had left. -- Document, document, document. The only thing that saved my butt in the above situation was that I had copies of email follow-ups to several of the conversations I had with the Scout regarding the POR. And I had my advancement chairman sit in on the final, now-or-never conversation. -- Involve the parents. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't have to pin notes to the sleeves of 17-year-old Eagle candidates, but I would have sure saved myself a lot of aggravation if the parents had been involved. -- This really wasn't part of my situation, but to quarzse's point, I would not let a Scout start something where it is a technical impossibility to complete. I wouldn't let him start an Eagle-required POR inside six months (my willingness to spot the above Scout two weeks), and I would not issue him a blue card for any of the 90-day MB inside three months. Why? You're just creating a situation where someone can cook the books and take control of the situation out of your hands. The kid then shops for an easy counselor who pencil-whips the blue card and he has that merit badge whether you like it or not. Things without hard time frames, like Eagle projects, you kinda have to let the Scout give it a try if he wants to. But you have to be very firm that he will be held to the same standards as anyone else and will not be allowed to cut corners just because he's running out of time. Again, make sure you communicate that to the parents, too. By the way, the troop was upheld on appeal in the above situation. The appeals committee believed that because the Scout had been told multiple times he needed a POR and was given multiple opportunities to do so, that the troop had handled the situation properly. Edited part -- a question for Evry: You don't review the budget before they start the 90-day tracking? I know it's not specified in the requirements, but isn't the point of a budget to forcast income and expenses. Our troop Personal Management MBC asks the boys to at least touch base with him monthly during the tracking period. Yeah, someone will argue that's not in the requirements, but the Scouts get much more out of the process with the interim reviews. And in some respects, it's a little easier on the Scouts as they are more likely to follow through with the tracking with a couple touch-points along the way. Personal Fitness clearly requires testing before beginning the 12-week fitness program. Seems like a good idea. Frankly, I just don't like the idea of a Scout meeting only once with an MBC, just to turn in all the paperwork. How is that Scout learning from the counselor's expertise and guidance?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

When did the Scout earn all these? If he (meaning his parents) are going back to his Tiger year and analyzing every family vacation or activity to figure out what he's done, that's a problem. I don't know if there is a specific restriction on beltloops, but it is a general principle of Cub Scout advancement that you only work on stuff for the current program year. In other words, he should only get awards for which he did the work as a Webelos II. But if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. I think you need to sit down with the parents and ask for help -- either help paying for the awards or perhaps being a little more reasonable in what he earned. I would be concerned, however, about setting up a situation where only the boys whose parents can afford the awards can get them. Going forward, I think reasonable restrictions are okay. Our pack would only award a belt loop once (say a boy who earns Citizenship early, then again for the Webelos requirement). We would recognize him at the pack meeting, but he wouldn't get a second beltloop. Parents who go nuts about their kids going through the Academic and Sports program like Tasmanian devils are missing the point. Some education is in order. I always saw the beltloops as something a boy/den could work on to provide some intermediate recognition while working on rank badges. If a Scout blows through all the beltloop fast, there's nothing left. A Webelos II doing this is a bit unusual, I suppose due to the pack not really offering the program earlier. But the truth is beltloops are pretty easy for a 10-year-old and pounding out that many really isn't much of an accomplishment. Although I assume the kid surprised you with the 26 loops, had the WDL known what the boy was working on, he should have been strongly encouraged to work on fewer pins rather than dozens of beltloops. Again, that is a matter of educating the parents to the program and the pack leaders having a little more experience managing it.

But isn't the idea that an assault on one union is an assault against all unions? You dont' think the UAW encourages their workers to vote for pro-union school board members? The crux of Stosh's argument is the rest of us don't have the opportunity to vote for (or against) our employer. No, there are probably very few places where actual union members determine election results. But given the nature of most elections, a 10% voting bloc is a huge electorial mass.

Yeah, that's the theory Beav, but I suppose there are places where the beneficiaries of government largesse (be they unions or anyone else) are in the majority at the ballot box. I belive it was de Tocqueville who predicted the demise of American democracy would come when Americans realized we can vote ourselves money.

I guess I'm on the side of the fence with Seattle Pioneer. As presented, it seems to me there are at least two possibilities here: 1) The leaders in the pack are not only the worst Scout leaders imaginable, but are so incredibly insensitive to the point of being intentionally cruel to this little fellow. Or, 2) There's another side to the story. Your friend has time to be fully trained AND to take her son to every council and district event. He went to three weeks of day/resident camp last year with someone. Yet the mom doesn't have time to help with the den. If the mom's work schedule is a problem, does that mean the boy is being dropped off a den meetings unsupervised? And if he's in the program for the socialization it affords him, why are doing so much on their own? The DLs are charged with running a program for the entire den. I wonder how your friend and her son react when they show up for a den meeting and learn the den will be working on a pin the boy already has? Are they glad for the opportunity to do something fun again, or do you get a heavy sigh and rolling eyes? Having the lad help the other boys may be a good idea, but I wonder how his ADS effects that? For the couple ADS boys I've worked with that would not be a good idea. I can appreciate that Scouting is good for the boy and that working on all these achievements ahead of the den may be very beneficial to him. But ADS aside, that is something I as a pack and den leader I strongly advised parents against. Having one boy who has finished everything causes problems for the DL. It robs the Scout of a lot of the shared experiences and team building he would otherwise have. And it ultimately puts the Scout in exactly the position this boy is in -- a year left in Webelos with no challenges ahead of him. I have a suspicion that the DLs cold attitude to the boy is a really poor and inappropriate way of saying they just can't handle the situation. Not everyone is cut out to deal with special needs Scouts and as volunteers we shouldn't be forced to. That needs to be a responsibility a leader takes on with fully informed consent. And, the leader, den or pack should have the ability to raise their hand(s) and say, I'm sorry, this is just more than I/we are capable of handling. Bless the folks who can take on special needs kids, but don't damn the ones who can't. I have no idea how to fix this. My advice to you, Trainerlady, would be to help your friend take an objective look at her role in the situation. Maybe if everyone takes a deep breath there is common ground to be found with the den leaders. I rather doubt they are the cold-hearted twits they seem to be.

Several Cub Scout Day Camp session of National Camp School are coming up. Anyone going?

The DC service award is a great idea, but there are specific requirements for it. Double check, but if he's been active with the den for a year, he should be good to go. I don't know there's a lot you can say to the young man. Sometimes you do your best, even do a great job the things happen beyond your control. Yeah, it sucks. I'd be curious to know what else is going on. Maybe I'm becoming jaded, but I'm envisioning a lot of adult fingerprints on this. If it has been clear for some time that the boys in the den were going to another troop, the WDL and/or pack leadership should have made some adjustments. No, the choice of troops is not a quid pro quo for the services of a den chief, but at minimum the DC should have been made aware of the direction the boys were headed as early as possible. It may be worth a brief discussion with the other DLs so they can keep an eye open in the future.

I wonder if BSA is self-insured against harassment suits? I bet that would change the dynamics.

AOL Req. 4 is to visit a Boy Scout troop meeting and attend a Boy Scout oriented outdoor activity. AOL Req. 5 is to participate in a Webelos overnight campout or a day hike. For the Outdoorsman activity badge, the requirement is to take part in a Webelos den or family overnight campout in a tent you have pitched. So a kid could camp in the backyard with his sister and could meet the camping requirements for Webelos. Don't get me wrong, that would really suck. With that little outdoors experience, the prognosis for that boy's career in Boy Scouts would be grim. I'm a very strong proponent that Webelos need to attend both years of resident camp, that Webelos dens should have at least one campout a year with just the den, and I'm definitely a big proponent of the Webelos going on an actual campout with the Boy Scout troop. But we still need to be accurate with what is actually required.

Let's define terms. A camporee is generally a gathering of different Boy Scout troops camping together, enjoying common activities, often competitions, and programs designed for the boy scouts. According to the Guide to Safe Scouting, Age-Appropriate Guidelines, Webelos may only visit Boy Scout camporees. The ways folks devise to skirt this requirement would make an Enron accountant proud. But the idea is that a Boy Scout camporee should be built around age appropriate activities for the Boy Scouts. Having Webelos attend could create safety issues, or at least frustration if the Webelos are precluded from various activities. Webelos are required to participate in a outdoor-oriented activity with a Boy Scout troop as a requirement for Arrow of Light. We very strongly encourage the Webelos in our brother pack to go camping with the troop to fulfill this requirement, but often have one or two Webelos who can't make the full campout. We invite the Webelos IIs from our brother pack to go camping with the troop every fall. The whole campout is targeted to giving the Webelos a taste of the things Boy Scouts do. We don't really try to teach the skills, just show them off. We also include some orientation time for the parents. Ditto Lisabob when it comes to the courting thing.

Another example of Supply Division selling stuff when they should be supporting the programs. Yeah, this could be a problem and packs need to get out in front of it. Better make this very clear upfront. When I was CM one year we had a Scout (dad) who had the idea of cutting the mast and sail into thirds to make a clipper ship. The lower profile was much more stable and the kid smoked everyone. The next year we made that illegal, but a Scout (dad) came up with the idea of splitting the standard hull in half and making a catamaran. The added stability plus the standard height mast was even faster. Finally, we declared the event to be a "one-design" regatta, meaning all boats would be identical. Paint them, decorate them, spiff them up any way you like, but the racing form of the boat should be as out of the box. There is a bit of skill involved in sailing a Raingutter, and we wanted the race to be about that, not's whose dad could figure out how to game the system. But more importantly, we didn't want to get into another Pinewood Derby competition where the focus was on building a fast car, not having fun with it.

As to the touchy-feely stuff, don't sweat it. Four or five years ago, it really wasn't part of the course per se. The "reflection" questions were mailed to you some point and your were asked to answer them on your own, before the course. Well, I lost the sheet and didn't think about it until I got to the course. But no one ever ask for it and no one else ever sees it. As you write the goals for you ticket, you are asked to review your answers and consider how your reflection impacts your goals. As in my case, I guess "not at all" is good enough. Personally, I'm fairly phobic of that sort of thing. I have an ASM who is all over it and keeps wanting to give the PLC some Brigg & Stratton personality test, or some dang thing. But that ain't happening. You will, however, have to jump through the hoops and write your ticket using the SMART goals format. I thought it rather lame. What I really learned was how to write goals in such a way that meeting them is a lock. The get-out-of-jail-free card in the process is the "R" in that goals must be relevant to you. "I will work with the Scouts in my troop on the Leave No Trace award" is relevant to you in that it is fully within your means to accomplish. "I will help five Scouts in my troop earn the Leave No Trace award" is not relevant in that you have no control over what the Scouts ultimately do. Try that at work. See if "I will make 20 sales calls this month" will fly rather than "I will close $50,000 in sales this month."

I agree with what everyone here has said, but I think the more important issue is one of expectations, not policy. You will always have parents who will go through the book mining requirements their son inadvertantly completed. That really subverts program and cheats the Scout. The whole reason they are in Tigers is so they can do stuff with their son. Instead of turning the process into an adult accounting process, engage your son and make a plan to go do it again, purposefully working on whatever Scout requirement. A family may do a particular activity all the time and the kid may have completed the requirements for an elective or belt loop multiple times. But I promise no seven-year-old ever looks at that activity and says, "hey dad, I did this last summer. Can you sign it off." (Okay, they will if they've been taught to do so.) Most kids are going to look at the requirements and say, "Hey, I'm really good at this. I CAN DO THIS!" But you have to train the parents. As Cubmaster, I would always include this and similar topics in new parent orientation. Most adults are A-to-B people. You have to set these expectations early. You're not going to make this point in March when Sweet Little One is behind the other boys and mommy or daddy is trying to level the field.

Stepford troops, I like that. My guys would refer to them as a Pleasantville troop. I guess we're showing our age. E92 described how comraderie and bonding add to the mystique of Wood Badge pretty well. My understanding, mainly from a good friend who took and staffed the old course -- and please, I'm not trying to rekindle the new vs. old argument -- was the old course had a lot of "you will be given the information you need in due course" stuff. After about two days of that, Ida punched somebody. But I believe making folks scratch and sniff to find out stuff was part of the teaching technique. The fellow who was the course director for the 21C course I staffed still had a lot of that in him. You asked him what time it was and you got five minutes on appropriate use of resources. Don't give me that. My hands are in raw hamburger, my sleeves are down and I want to know if it's time to check the Dutch oven. WHAT FREAKING TIME IS IT? Our staff instructions for the 21C course (ca. 2006) were to answer questions honestly, both during the course and with potential participants before. Of course there are a couple things which are better if you don't step on the punch line. The one thing we were asked not to discuss in detail was the ticket. It wasn't a matter of mystery, rather all participants come to the class day one all wound up about the ticket. Our purpose was the get them to relax and quit worrying about it. Much of the first couple days covers material which will help them to develop their ticket. The fear was they would jump the gun and prematurely lock-in a ticket without benefit of the full picture. I don't know that there is a lot of intentional mystery anymore, maybe just an assumption of mystery. And by the way, I think the idea of targeting old course Wood Badgers to take the new course is asinine. I used to be in marketing and that ain't no marketing strategy. Marketing seeks to fill a need, this is just hearding cows into the barn. The suspicions and ill createe was fairly forseeable. Besides, if someone is so gung-ho they are willing to repeat the course, they know all about it and are fully capable of seeking out a seat. Personally, there's NO WAY I would retake any version of the course. Okay, if Kudu teaches the 1916 version, I'd take that, just for the fun of it. Around here, the drive to put butts around picnic tables and pound out courses is driven by the long line of council types who seek Good Ol' Boy immortallity with a fourth bead. It's better than a Silver Beaver. They give those out to anybody. But the plaque at camp for course directors is really small.

I hear you, E. I know there are some great kids out there. My son would do a bang-up job teaching photography and cinematography, but he's a quiet guy has no desire to spend his summer with all the type-A, silly skits and grass skirt shennaghans on camp staff. I rather doubt he would get hired. Besides, he will be 18 by summer camp so he's beyond my profile anyway. But even in your two examples, the great young staffers were either led by an old leatherneck who ruled the program, or were rather-highly trained lifeguards led by an even more highly-trained aquatics director. The real problems occur with the kid who is handed a merit badge pamphlet and box of mud and told, here, go teach pottery.

Okay, you win. Now what would you have the rest of us do? Who do I write to inform that my Scouts will no longer complete Eagle projects, serve in positions of responsibility or teach the edge method? Does that letter go to national or just council? Any advice for what to do with the vast majority of boys whose parents are going to pull them out of the program? Do we just wave them goodbye? I lost four or five boys this year because their parents felt there wasn't enough structure and adult supervision in our program. And I got guff last fall when the adults set up a base camp then sent the separate patrols to camp unsupervised a mile, mile-and-a-half out. If I'm understanding you correctly, patrols should now plan and execute multiple night adventure treks on their own, and the only adult involvement will be after-the-fact reports to the PLC/Court of Honor? Yeah, out of 65 kids, I maybe have five whose parents will sign up for that (and my wife ain't one of 'em). We'll have to unwind the full 100 years of history, because I believe the first revision to the 1910 requirements occurred in --- wait for it ---- 1911. But of course even that's not good enough, any number of times you've written that the YMCA corrupted B-P's program here before it ever got started, so we really have to scrap all of BSA and start fresh with only "Scouting for Boys" as our guide. Kudu, ol' man, after reading your stuff for, what, five years now?, I sincerely do have an appreciation for and understanding of your view of the program. I love the history of it all. Some of your resources, like wide games, are great and we've used them in the troop. As a newbie SM, I discoverd on my own that our patrols perform much better spread out rather than on top of each other. Thanks to you, I've specified 300' and have BP's stamp of approval on the principle. But I don't see the relevance of the rest. Maybe you're just trying to get guys like me to spread our patrols out and use traditional wide games now and again. I'm in! But I have to say your campaign against pretty much the entire program is off-putting. There are a whole bunch of folks out here who are working our butts off and doing some really great things using the program as given to us. Repeatedly belittling that work by telling us we're fools for taking Wood Badge or that our boys are cupcakes is probably not the best approach if you want to influence folks. I'm done. Ya'll make sure the fire's out. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Actually, the minimum age is 18, but still... The way camps get around this is to have an 18-year-old area director listed as the "couselor of record" for the badges, but it's a shell game. The official counselors are busy off teaching their own classes and rarely have time to observe the other MBs which they technically counsel, much less make the time participate in the actual sign-off of badges.

I'd rate many of the summer camp merit badges as hopelessly "slack." To keep the thread on track, I purposely did not mention summer camps, but the truth is they're the biggest MB mills of them all. Throw 15 kids at at 16-year-old counselor who barely qualifies for the merit badge itself, much less as any sort of expert in the field. The counselor can barely keep decorum much less deliver any sort of meaningful instruction. How is it anything but hopelessly slack. The problem, here at least, is the way we go about recruiting staff. The premium is on spirited, out-going, enthusiatic kid who are a lot of fun. They assemble the barrel of monkeys, then try to pick MBCs out of the bunch. As a result, we get a great, entertaining staff campfire Sunday night, but very weak instruction the rest of the week. We get really great instruction from the old guys who teach stuff like climbing, shooting sports, some aquatics and (in our council) metal work which is taught by an experienced blacksmith. Except for metal work, BSA requires camp-school certified, 21-year-old directors. What conclusions can you draw from that?