DuctTape

Just now, TheGreenWizard said:

Would be great, except the time it would take to complete would be outrageous.

Well, I would not have kept every single requirement. 😬

If I were in charge, I would have used the CIS idea as the catalyst to merge all 3 (now 4) citizenship mBs into one grand Citizenship mB. This is probably not a popular opinion, so be glad I am not in charge. 😜

7 hours ago, TheGreenWizard said:

@MattRYou did? Where? I haven't been able to find anything here about it.

https://www.scouter.com/search/?&q=Citizenship in society&search_and_or=and&search_in=titles

Bear in mind I have zero experience with Lone Scouts, nor with scouts who have such significant challenges which could necessitate a need to be separate from the group.

That said, IMO any part of the Scouting, including Lone Scout should be available to any scout regardless of disability.

In other non BSA organizations, etc... Resident Camp was contrasted with Day Camp, meaning you stayed for the nights.

Scout-led. 'nuff said.

15 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

It is in my council, although there is no guarantee that either patches or t-shirts will be available for those doing late registration or walk in.

I recall some events, patches were only available to "early-bird registration". 

1 hour ago, MattR said:

I'm trying to imagine a youth baseball team run like a scout troop with ranks and BORs. "You can't retest a player's plate sliding skill at a BOR. You can talk to them about how they learned the skill or how they taught the skill but you can't test the skill." That would never happen.

I read these discussions, and I've participated in them before, but now it just says to me that there's something wrong. The test for a sports player is on the field. The test for a 4H participant is in their garage or barn. The test for the orchestra is on the stage. The adults aren't needed for the test.

The real skills used in scouts has  very little to do with ranks and advancement. Advancement is just a way to motivate scouts to play the game, where they'll learn teamwork,  the scout law and the outdoors. To me, that's the problem with the BSA's version of scouting. The motivation is one step removed from the game. The game should be the only motivation.

Rather than have long complicated documents about how advancement should be run I'd much rather see help on how to motivate scouts to just play the game.

I agree Matt. I have always looked at advancement and the requirements as part and parcel of the scouting adventure. If the program is diverse, and adults do not shortchange the kids, the requirements will be accomplished by and within a quality program. 

You are correct there is a disconnect from advancement and program. or worse, the program is advancement.

Example: Every campout the scout should be presenting themselves to their PL with proper clothing and a complete pack. This should be SOP. It is SOP when I lead trips for adults. I provide lists and help to ensure they have what is needed; allow them to borrow gear from me. But prior to me leading them into the woods, I make sure they have everything. Final check at the trailhead. 

If done well, a scout will rarely one&done any requirement because they are all a regular part of the adventure. If most reqs are one&done, then take a look at the program and where the scouts are being shortchanged.

5 hours ago, yknot said:

No it's what I think.  GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me. 

I do not believe the SM clears the scout for the BOR. The SM conference is not necessarily the last requirement signed off, nor is the SM conference a check of readiness or completion of the other requirements. It is the responsibility of BOR to ensure completion of the requirements. While we may quibble over pass/fail, the BOR can just be suspended and scheduled to reconvene at a later date.

Another aspect which I believe needs further discussion is the concept of not penalizing scouts for adult error. It appears that this has been taken to the extreme. What constitutes error vs outright fraud? Is a scout granted all ranks just because some adult signed all his requirements in the book? Do we just throw our hands up and say "we dont penalize the scout for adult error" and give the kid his Eagle badge? If not, then there is some discernment to be made for situation less than this ridiculous scenario. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to formulate a legalistic description as individual scenarios cany vary.

I submit this is one purpose of the BOR, to make this judgement at the local level. Not a retest of requirements, but when discovered a requirement was not completed it can be rectified. The BOR should  discuss with the scout how to rectify the situation, suspend the BOR and reconvene.

IMO Charting and membership (youth and adults) should be completely separate. The Charter is an agreement between Council and the COR. Membership is something else entirely. IMO, the Charter should not include any membership names of youth or adults, except the COR who attests to the current numbers of youth and registered adults delineated by troop and committee. 

6 hours ago, sierracharliescouter said:

For the past couple years our council has been on a "YPT every year for everyone" basis for recharter, to eliminate the possibility of someone's YPT expiring while they are still actively registered with a unit.

Ours has as well.

What is allowed vs what should be done in executive sessions?

Having served on an executive board (not associated with scouting), a well run board with ethics (and sometimes by law) will only discuss matters in executive session which outside disclosure may harm the organization financially, or a person. For example, discussion regarding personnel matters: the specifics, legal and fiduciary consequences would be discussed in executive session however the vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent to the rest of the committee. Sale of real property, the discussion in executive session would only happen if the discussion would adversely affect the sale for the organization and again the final vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent. Of course this is the ideal and all boards are run by people who make errors either by ignorance, expediency, or malice. Many times I have had to speak up in executive session to remind the other memebers that the discussion of confidential info has concluded, and the rest should include the larger assembly fro transparancy (in my case by law).

What I find abhorrent is that those who use executive sessions not as a means to protect individuals privacy (personnel matters) or protect the legal or fiduciary matters of the organization but to hide the decisions and the votes of the specific executive board members, or to circumvent the will of the larger assembly. When this happens, the trust no longer exists and without trust, leadership becomes authoritative. So regarding Council, District, Troop operations... IMHO, this is antithesis to the values of scouting and should not be tolerated by scouters and has no place in Scouting.

On 9/21/2022 at 3:30 PM, fred8033 said:

#1 ... not only extorting defendants ... it biases juries.   "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is to convict on a single charge; but situations are rarely clear cut.  A jury can feel good about their decision if they feel they proportionately convict.  ...  Thinking being we're not really sure if the accused is really guilty.  So, let's convict on one of five of the charges.  That way the decision to not convict on the 4 of 5 reflects the doubt and feels like a fair decision.   In addition, juries think he must be guilty of one of these.  Let's choose the closest match.  ... Even worse, these situations are ugly.  It's hard for a jury to see an ugly situation and not convict on any of multiple charges.  

#2  Fair punishment is always hard to decide.   Even harder deciding on fair without having a single fact.  

Having served on a jury where multiple charges were presented. This type of thinking was not present at all. What the multiple charges allowed us to do was to deliberate on the specifics of each charge to determine if the defendant was guilty of any of them. In our case, and I surmise in most others, the difference in the charges was the particulars in the law specific to each charge. The judge was excellent in providing instructions so we understood exactly what was needed to have been proven by the DA beyond a reasonable doubt to support each of the different charges. Some of them were unbelievably specific. Prior to my service I did not know that the jury had to parse all the details for the specifics. I thought that was the judge's job if the jury said "guilty". Jury duty was not easy, but it was a fantastic learning experience. 

If she is in the position, it counts. If she is failing to perform, then she should no longer be in the position. 

My initial thought was also, 5 scouts and an SPL? Superfluous position. You have one patrol, and the PL.

What I observe in the highest performing units:

Patrols planning and executing outings independently (and sharing/advising via the PLC.)

Scouts taking personal responsibilty for their own advancement (and encouraging/helping others in their Patrol)

SM/ASMs using the Socratic Method to help a PL, SPL, etc. make decisions. (and recognizing the instances when these questioning techniques need to be at the  SM request).

Regular, ongoing SM conferences throughout the year, not just as an advancement check-off. (Every meeting conferences are happening.)

Troop Committee has multiple members who fulfill the responsibilites without interferring with the scouts program.

Welcome! Having a a strong and functional Comm will make your job easier. You can focus on program as is your responsibility. Look forward to hearing your success stories.

The "approval" as I have always believed is solely whether the Committee is able to provide the necessary logistical and financial support. ie, two-deep leadership, transportation, permits, etc. The only reason for "disapproval" IMO is b/c the troop committee is unable to facilitate providing e.g. enough drivers for the activity. The primary purpose of the Comm is to support the Scouts plan, not approve/disapprove their plan.

IIRC BoRs were originally conducted by volunteer community members of high esteem with the primary purpose of helping scouts learn and grow in the interview process; to learn to sell themselves to prospective employers. It had little to do with actual rank, but was just another means, purposely created to which scouts would grow.

It is beautiful to see how all the methods and processes when understood and used with fidelity underscore this basic tenet of Scouting; Growth. I try to remember this with all I do. Every conversation, every suggestion, every decision is predicated on whether it provides for scouts to grow, or does it shortchange them the opportunity, the promise of scouting. I believe this is what makes scouting unique compared to all other youth activities except perhaps 4-H (although I am not sure how intentional it is within their history and structure as it is with Scouting.)

My first take on your latest post:

It appears (please correct me if I am mistaken) the SM and PLC are not leading the program? It appears parents are making decisions.

If the parents are ASMs, then they are to be following the direction of the SM. In their absence, a specific ASM should be the acting SM, and this person should be chosen beforehand by the SM. Other parents are "observers only" they should not be interacting with the scouts much at all. They should never be interferring with the program, which undermines the SM or the PLC.  Troop committee members are also just observers are not particpants in the program.

It appears that the adults in the troop need a reset to understand the specific roles of SM, ASM, troop committee and parent observers.

Also, specific training for all Unit positions including how to empower the Scouts to move the troop to Scout-Led.

IIRC, it was Barry who recommends training the parents. I agree with this too.

If scouts and scouters are not following the Scout Law, and the associated behaviors are ignored then an additional code of conduct will just be another list of specific  behaviors which are repeated and tolerated by inaction.

IMO

Focus on behaviors and the damage to relationships, not a piece of paper.

Ugh!!!!

Might as well begin folding up the tent now. 

There is no way in hades this promotes any of the aims utilizing any of the methods. IOW, it ain't Scoutung. I won't argue about it b/c any hypothethicals,  "but if the scouts did..." would be pure hogwash. None of any potential hypotheticals would manifest in reality, except as an anomaly.

Edit: and *I* worked in the computer gaming industry at one time.

I guess I am used to a cub program which was 95% done at the den level. Dens met completely separately from the pack. The only interaction with otjer dens was pinewood derby and B&G. Pack meetings were rare and short, and we just stayed together as a den or with our parents.

As far as procedures for the scenario. The GTA is intenionally vague about a specific process but provides descriptors to help a unit leader navigate how to be respectful to the other adults and scouts  while ensuring the mB requirements were actually completed as written. The gta is not written in a step by step, must do list, process, but invokes the scout law through discussion. IMO, this is the way it should be; less legalistic, more scoutlike.

I use a tarp quite a bit. I do not bring poles for it, and rarely need them. I pitch the tarp using available trees. For raising the center in a dining hall style pitch, I typically use a center tie out and raise it up from an overhanging branch, or a run a ridge line between trees to which the center gets tied onto.

In the last 20 years, I have used a pole, but it was a dead branch I cut to length. 

I would encourage folks to have the scouts not bring tarp poles. For a variety of reasons:

The rigging of the tarp itself is an exercise in problem solving and utlizing scout skills.

Promotes alternative tarp pitch ideas.

Less weight to carry/store.

Cost.

In general I fall into the camp of not buying gear when scout skills are an easy solution.

I remember when the world crest was given after attending an international event.

Regarding neckerchiefs, when did they change from the cub scout yellow for all cubs, then a blue webelos? Having a different neckerchief for bobcat, wolf, etc... seems excessive. At the troop level, they have only one, except an Eagle Scout might wear an Eagle neckerchief.