BrotherhoodWWW

Centennial is one hundred years not every hundred years. 200 years is bicentennial.......

Quality unit (pack, troop, team, post, crew, district, council, region, lodge, section, etc.) has in the past been based on metrics that if met signify that the "unit" is doing what it takes to provide a quality program. I suspect that the new requirements will still fit this mold. I also suspect that they will be achievable for most units. Units that have not looked at this before might consider doing so as just another tool to see if they are doing all they can to ensure a good program for their youth.

Wondering if my post even was read..... Although the SM is not blameless it seems to me that the problem in Acco's example was a mis-communication between the SM and DL mother. The DL mom did not understand what was said to her. She is the one that is guilty of dispersing bad information. A take home message might be that Trainers need to clearly communicate that it is best to read and understand the literature rather than passing on hearsay.

With all due respect are you reading the same post as we are ScoutMythBuster?(This message has been edited by BrotherhoodWWW)

ScoutMythBuster I think you're reading this wrong. The SM did nothing in error. The Den Leader mother failed to listen to what she was being told in Acco's example. The SM said lets wait until Johnny reaches First Class, what he did not say was that FC is a requirement. It seems that with this example had the CM made the same request of the SM as the DL mother that his answer would have been the same, a gentle no. Your suggestion that the SM should quote the "rule" however is a good one but that requires good listening on the part of the DL for it to not be construed as personal.

Or simply sew a button hole where it meets the button on the sholder.

+1 what Brent Allen said! I have and use the Alps Mystique 1.5. The only complaint I have is it does not have enough headroom for me. Pleanty of room for my thin 14 yo Scout. IMHO it is hard to beat Alps when you factor in their discout to Scouts and their customer service.

Wow! Interesting that you do not say where you had your course, that might be helpful to others. Wish you would have gone through the course I just finished staffing as I think all enjoyed it. What do you mean by #3 when you say you are on staff for another course, what course is that? How did your WB stafff do it wrong specifically?

#5, yup we get that but other courses do not have your patrol in an outdoor setting (I hope and assume) or the overall atmosphere of a Scout Troop.

As far as what Vigil noticed.... WB for the 21th Century was adapted from the syallabus of NLS, or at least the current one, which differs remarkably from the NLS I attended in 1981.

It greatly depends on the local ban. Around here we have several types of bans and in most forested areas where a ban is in effect it is no open fires including wood or charcoal, with the exception is some specific established campgrounds. Liquid or propane fueled camp stoves and lanters are allowed.

100 miles hiking or backpacking is just 30 miles over that required for hiking MB..

Wow so much for a friendly discussion! I hesitate to even offer my opinion on the matter as it seems that many here with a different view will simply name-call or want to argue with me about my opinion. But whatever..... As John and I have discussed in a differing topic of the same subject matter the problem of summer cmap staffing is not as simple as we could hope. At one time our camps were fully staffed by youth male Scluts that made little money. Sadly much simpler times. If you want to increase the OA staffing of camps offer a competitive wage for the job. However that said I think youth should sacrafice and work at their council camp for little pay and it sould be the Arrowmen that are doing it. It is after all selfless service! The problem is how do we get them to do it.

As far as allowing elections in Venturing as a way to reward young women camp staffers with OA membership......... Youth are elected based on UNIT service. Working at summer camp is not unit service unless the purpose of the unit is to staff a camp; would that not then be more of Exploring or learning for life than adventure based leadership?

I am opposed to elections in Venturing because I do not see a benefit of OA (to those currently within) being co-ed at the youth level. If it were I would not be involved. I am involved in Boy Scouts because it is not Co-ed if it were neither I nor my son would be involved. To me it is a matter of tradition. If co-ed venturng is such a great thing then why does it not have exponetial growth? If Venturing wants an honors program why do they not develop their own? Perhaps they could come up with something that would fit their target age group which should be older than those of Boy Scout age if you buy their argument that Venturing should be a natural fit after boy scouts.

Bitter, yeah whatever! Thanks Chazz for understanding what I wrote. I had to earn Skill Awards to make it to First Class. I liked mastering the skills part or I must have since I still have them. As a youth I was not advancement driven nor were my Scoutmasters, including my last one who was an Eagle Scout. I was all about the outdoor adventure. During my college years I served as an ASM and I do not recall folks in that unit especially liking Skill Awards. I moved away for college. As a youth I was in two vastly different Troops. Neither as I recall were anything other than hohum about Skill Awards.

From my viewpoint there is really not much difference between post '72 requirements and those of today. Skill Awards were started IIRC in"&@ when National butchered the program. We've been in decline since those times as our national population has increased. Even today the requirements for the skills do not say "do once and done" although sadly this appears to be what happens in some units and at some summer camps that offer T-2-1 fast track programs. When I compare the requirements over the revisions I see that they have progressively gotten much easier. I also see that as instant gratification has increased (instant recognition) so has the # of Eagle Scouts and advancement only programs. The purpose of Boy Scouts is not to make Eagle Scouts.

Ya'll have detailed some good points about Skill Awards. I just happen to not like them. Nothing bitter or even sweet about that! By the time boys are in Boy Scouts I think their attention span is a bit longer and does not need monthly awards to keep them coming.

If Skill Awards are so awesome why is it that it seems to be such a poorly used feature in Cub Scouting?

Yeah nolesrule some of us use such language because it is the norm in our industry, environment, and our friends. Thanks for the defence! Surely some of ya'll never met me or those I work around, live around, etc., hence you would have no confusion on exactly what a real man is and is not! A much better SM minute or discussion to have with boys is how there are options available to using these words but beyond that we should not rush to judgement about folks based on language or skin color or religion or political view points. We should judge ourselves and our actions and serve others!

John, I agree that it is not the best of ideas but my point is that it is an option.

In my unit and those that I serve as a UC I strongly recommend that parents do not counsel their own children.

"I'm not going to be the Merit badge counselor for any of my son's Merit badges because I know it's a big no no.

Thanks in advance,

Mark M. "

Am I the only one that picked up on this last part? Mark per the ACP&P guide already mentioned parents are expressly PERMITTED to serve as MBC's for their boys. There are several places in several publications that specifically state that a parent MAY counsel his or her own son. I think for the most part most parents choose not to counsel their own sons, but it is OK to do so as long as the parent is a registered MBC for that merit badge.

I'll take a stab at this. Perhaps the reason for closing region offices is to lower costs. From what I've been told by our Council President there are many Councils in severe financial trouble. The FOS program is simply not working to fund what needs funding. I'm sure there are other causes as well. Non profit deas not mean we can operate at a loss.

since we are on the subject I think it might be a good time for BSA to re-evaluate FOS and the true cost of delivering the program to youth. Perhaps we need to be charging the real cost to participants.

Concur with Calico

Current Chapter Adviser, our Lodge's next Lodge adviser.

Further more I'm not sure you'll get it both ways but you might so be sure to have the discussion with your Lodge Adviser or Chapter Adviser. If you use registered = active in an effort to gain adults then you need more than half of those registered to be attending during the election. 18-20 ASM's are counted in these numbers. So if you have 47 +4 18 yo ASM's you may elect every youth that gets at least 50 % of the votes plus two adults may be selected. You'd need at least 26 "youth" present to have the election. If you had 26 "youth" present and voting a Scout would have to receive 13 votes to be elected. If only one youth is elected and you have 51 youth members you still get to submit two adults, that is 21 years and older. Adults do not have to meet first class but they do have to meet the camping requirements. Adults are selected not for the honor but for what they can offer to the OA and the youth involved, usually means transportation and support. Elections can only occur once a year and I doubt that any Lodge will allow a youth election than months later an adult selection but check with your local Lodge because they could do this.

In my lodge the LEC (lodge exec. committee, only youth Lodge and Chapter officers have a vote) actually voted to accept two units elections just days before the first annual Ordeal in an effort to increase those eligible for election with the hope that more would be elected. The point is once each year is the rule but each Lodge picks when that will occur. So they might split youth and adult selection. But also keep in mind that even though a unit Troop or Team nominates an adult they are not guaranteed that they will be selected by the Lodge. Although I've not know Lodges to exclude those nominated, but it could happen.

Wow John in KC that is about as close to open hostility as I've ever seen aimed at me. I am not the cause of boys not serving on camp staff! I was not a part of the National Council of Chiefs where this was last discussed but they have made it clear that it is a closed topic. My opinions are just as valid as any one else's opinion. Sorry if some do not agree. I do have ideas on how to get more Boys on staff but that is a topic for a different thread. And I gotta tell ya John I already wear four hats, am not paid for any of them so I do not have to find more boys to staff!

TCD the definetion of active is a two edged sword. It seems that it is written in such a way as to maximize the nuber of elected members. In that if you have 20 registered members and only 9 are active and for some reason only 8 of those happen to be in attendance the night of the election if you count registered= active no election happens. By using active (SM defined) an election is held, is considered valid and all those that received at least 50% of the vote are elected. 50% is based on the number of ballots turned in. Thus new cross over Scouts can and perhaps should be asked to obstain from voting.

I'll add more later...time for me to go to a Troop meeting.

NW,

The only troop level position open to "adults" in the 18 to 20 age group is that of Assistant Scoutmaster. Why a unit would choose an 18-20 y.o. lady for such position is beyond me. If your Lodge is inducting women under the age of 21 it is doing so possibly in violation to the rules.

As far as girls...Scouting is already co-ed in Venturing, has been for years in Exploring. I doubt very much if Varsity or Boy Scouts will become co-ed and I hope I'm right. If it does I shall find some thing else for me and my son(s).

jet526 I have not heard back from anyone at National. I have even went so far as to alert National Vice Cheif Ben Stilwill of my post on the MyScouting community linked to above. In the MyScouting community Ben and myself have become "friends". He has not given any input on this subject.

http://community.scouting.org/forums/t/215.aspx

Follow the above link for a rather long winded explination of my thoughts and opinions on this matter. In a nut shell I agree with Eagle92. That said I do not always wear mine to Courts of Honor, even though as our current Chapter Adviser I am usually asked or informed at the last minute to present to the audience all our Troop's Arrowmen.

SSScout our purpose is three fold! Honoring those Scouts......, Service, and Promoting Scout camping. Recognition is specifically listed, twice actually. in (This message has been edited by brotherhoodwww)

Yup, BETA testing is underway. The software they are using has plenty of interesting and useful features. I like it! Not sure which browsers you're havin' problems with Beavah but it seems to work welll with both IE 7.0xxx and Firefox (latest release.) There have been a few bug reports but things seem to mostly work. National staff are spot on top of fixing problems with service on par of what I have seen of folks that are committed to excellence!

As that site becomes larger and more traveled I find it doubtful that I will spend much time on this site anymore. I tire of the interpersonal bikkering, even though I have been part of it. I find this sites software antiquated, not very user friendly and poorly featured. Heck it reminds me of those homespun trousers that Deets in Lonesome Dove wore, the owner seems to not want to ever upgrade to something modern that works across differing browsers. With the host of features BSA is offering I can see much more traffic that is focused to actual interest groups. Over there I am even using my real name! imagine being able to post inline pics! Imagine a user editor interface with built in markup commands. All of that and more.

http://www.troop679.org/patrol_box_plans.html

The above is one plan that I've found although I have not really studied it nor can I recommend it. I am not sold on the idea of chuck boxes as a useful item for Patrol camping. I think a large plastic tote is a good way to organize and store camping and cooking equipment. In use a chuck box to be useful needs to be designed with a lot of care so as to be stable. Cubbies need to be designed around specific items so that evey thing has a place without wasted space. My biggest two issues with chuck boxes is the weight and portability and that they are really only useful IMHO for car camping.

All that said I have a camp kitchen box that I use with my personal wall tent. It measures about 24" x 24" x 8". It features a detachable lower shelf, splayed legs, and ajustable table surface. Loaded with cookwear it weighs about 25 lbs.

About half of the families in our Troop have active parents in the program either as committee members or program adults. We currently have no adults without active youth. This may be changing in the next year or so. A few families have both parents active.

Sometimes this is too much sometimes not enough. It's sometimes a matter of perspective and sometimes a matter of fact. We have had at least one outing cancelled in the past year due to not having two deep leadership. So from this perspective we do not have enough involvement.

Bob, perhaps you are not the only one confused by what we do. If I knew it was only you I would not waste the bandwidth to 'splain it since you don't seem to be on the same level as the rest of us in understanding that the above direct quote is a snide attack!

We believe that sending our youth to summer camp is an important part of the program we provide for them. Our dues does not pay any of the fees for summer camp. We rely on either parents paying for camp or participating in Troop sponserd fund raising to pay for this. Two seperate issues. Cost of dues plus summer camp at the low end is $365 with nothing going to the Troops equipment and supplies fund. We'd prefer that parents not having to pay both dues and camp fees. We offer a reachable goal that will pay for both dues and camp. Our popcorn and other fund raiser is strictly for camp and equipment purchases and repairs, however if Scouts or thier parents want to also earn their dues through fundraising then we have a program in place for them to do so. Having all this in writing so that there is no question on the rules will eliminate future misunderstandings as we've had in the past.