Eagle94-A1

1) As others have commented, your pack is doing it wrong, way wrong, and it is hurting the boys. They know they have not earned their ranks. Their parents know they have not earned their ranks, and when they become Boy Scouts and must master the skills to advance, they and their parents will have an extremely hard time adjusting. I predict 1/2 of those crossing over will quit within a year. Why I say that? There is a pack locally that is lax with their advancement policies, and that is happening. The pack's Webelos are not prepared for Boy Scouts, and the parents are constantly hovering trying to get their kids advancement they have not earned. All because of the precedent set by the Cub Scout pack and their lax policies. And they are not as lax as your packs either.3 2) What are you teaching your Cub Scouts if you allow short cuts? How can they be proud of wearing rank they have not truly earned? 3) Why can't folks just follow policy?

I would look at the topic Shug Emery has done on his channel. Just remember there are somethings he does you should not, i.e. riding a unicycle with a lit stove. https://www.youtube.com/user/shugemery

That standard was in a powerpoint for early adopters. At the Cub level 2 adults over 21, one of whom must be a registered Scouter, can work with all boy dens, BUT one registered female over 21 MUST be in attendance at all functions of an all girls' den. Gotta love the double standard.

One troop I know plans on getting around the female scouter on camp outs with "family camping with their dad and/or brother." While they have not thought about meetings yet, bet they use "patrol meetings" to get around the meeting issue. One thing that hit me, will patrol day activities that currently do not require an adult now require one?

I'm sorry, I am taking things to personally of late..I admit the past 2 weeks have been stressful at work. I was hoping to have a relaxing weekend camping to bleed off the stress.That didn't happen and several things happened that made the stress worse. Again I apologize.

Since I believe below is addressed to me, I will give my responses. But my first question is this: Are you familiar with OA election procedures? In order to be on the ballot, a Scout must be First Class or higher, have 20 days and nites of camping, including one long term camp in the past 2 years, and must have the SM's approval. A SM can withhold approval for any reason he wants. BUT once the SM approves the names on a ballot, they are eligible to be elected. Then it is in the hands of the youth in a troop. And if the unacceptable Scout is elected, there is nothing the SM can do because he had already approved the name for election. How is it the OA Adviser and team's fault if the SM, upon being told the election results, starts making a scene? How is it the adviser's fault if the SM refuses to go to an area out of hearing of the youth of his troop to calmly discuss the matter? How is it the fault of the advisor if the SM continues to be confrontational after the the decision of the OA team to leave. How is it the Advisor's fault that the SM is screaming and cursing at him and the election team as they are in the parking lot leaving? I know not every situation is the same, but making a blanket "clear indication that the OA advisor messed up...." is not right. Sometimes the SM is at fault in these matters. Agree an OA election is not worth fighting over. That's why when I realized the SM would not listen to reason and continued to yell and curse, I ended the discussion and told the team to pack it up. But how did I as an advisor "mess up" when SM follows us into the parking lot yelling and cursing at us as we leave? Correct, OA had no need to stay. The election was completed, and as a courtesy the SM was informed. So again, How did I mess up when the SM started yelling and cursing at me and the youth, following us to the parking lot as we left. Agree. It would have been condescending, arrogant, and prideful if I tried to argue with the SM. But would you call it condescending, prideful, and arroganrt when the SM follows us out and yells, "you don't know [anything] about the OA," when I've been active with the OA for several years and was the Chapter Adviser?

That is why any issues, concerns, or problems a SM has with the Elections Team and/or Advisor need to be dealt with privately and calmly. I know I have had a few of those over the years. But when a SM starts yelling and berating the youth election team members, that is when an advisor needs to step in. And if a SM continues to make a public spectacle by yelling and berating the youth and the advisor who is trying to calmly and privately discuss the issue, then it is time for the OA election team to calmly leave like I did.

I guess this would be anecdotal, but here it goes. One of my Scouts had "delayed entry" into the air force. He could not get his EBOR in before basic training, and he turned 18 during training. Long story short, he comes back from basic, gets a BOR scheduled, and the night of the BOR, the district rep discovers that he missed the no questions asked deadline by 2 days, and he needed to appeal to national. They had a nice "chat" with him, wished him well on his appeal, and stated they will be more than willing to do an EBOR for him. He got Eagle, but by the time everything was approved and done, he left for active duty. Never did have his ECOH.

I had an SM try to intimidate my Arrowmen into taking off a name of a Scout he didn't think was worthy AFTER he approved it. It got very heated when I intervened. This happened to be the same SM w whom I found out rigged the election previously by telling the Scouts who to vote for so all three eligible could get in (back when there was limits on who could be on the ballot),

This is what causes problems: folks ignoring the procedures and doing their own thing. OA Election Team Should NEVER have added a Scout's name to the elected sheet simply because the SM recommends them. That is not how it is done. From personal experience, I know youth on an election team can get intimidated at times by adults. So my question is, where was the adult adviser to intervene on behalf of the election team?

IMHO, I an guessing someone at the troop/council royally screwed up, and the only way to resolve the situation was to get the national team to intervene.

Also I want to apologize to @Scoutmaster Teddy for being over defensive regarding college students. I remember the disrespect I got from some Scouters, some with less experience in the movement than I had at the time, all due to my age. Add to that what has been going on with my troop, i.e. "The Scouts aren't ready to lead," and it I get overly sensitive. .

Update from national https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/bsa-clears-misconceptions-path-eagle-scout-rank-utah-scout-down-syndrome/

With all due respect, if you have a problem with 18 year old college students who are qualified to teach Eagle required MBs, then you may have a problem with operations in your unit. I was one of those "Over 18 and in college" MBCs who taught several Eagle required MBs, specifically Camping, First Aid, Swimming, and Lifesaving, in addition to several other MBs. As an 18 year old certified YMCA lifeguard instructor who had completed two 50 milers afloat , I felt more than qualified teaching the aquatic MBs. I admit not every camp has good staff, but that is more on the CD and PD than age generalization.

Somewhere I read he was a registered Cub Scout still, which would mean the Boy Scout advancement is null and void. And there is a way for SCOUTNET to allow someone over 11 to remain in Cub Scouts. Do not know the specifics except I had two packs with 17 and 19 year old Cub Scouts. Developmentally they were 2nd or 3rd graders.

I think someone at the local council, whether the pack and/or troop, or the council screwed up. It appears that the Scout has been registered as a Cub Scout all this time, and as a result ineligible for Boy Scout awards. I wonder why the council has not caught the problem earlier. Realistically he can stay a Boy Scout past his 18th birthday with the required paperwork. As stated previously, I've seen a 44 year old BOY (emphasis) Scout who not only had Down's Syndrome, but also legally blind earn his Eagle. Gut feeling: National and Local Council will review the situation to find out what went wrong. Depending upon what happened, I bet the boy will be retroactively made a Boy Scout, retroactively earned the awards he has earned, and will get the project approved, and eventually earn Eagle. From what I know of national, they A) do not allow adults' mistakes to affect youth (whether for good or bad is another question), and B) When the word "lawsuit" happens, they cave.

@Hawkwin, You do have a female ADL working with you? According to the info put out by national, a girls' den needs one registered, YPT female over 21 in addition to a second person.

This has been a topic of conversation on Facebook. There is a lot of confusion due to the terminology used by the dad in some previousreports. A lot of information is being left out of this and the previous articles IMHO. BSA has a program where Special Needs Scouts can advance. There are procedures in place that need to be followed. I knew a 44 year blind special needs SCOUT ( emphasis) who earned Eagle. Mentally he was about 13 or 14.

Besides Eagle1993, are there any other Early Adopters out there? The Pack and Troop Scouters will be meeting with our CO regarding Family Scouting, and they want to know "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." And if challenges have arisen, what have been the solutions. @Eagle1993, thanks for all the posts and please keep them coming. It is helping a lot.

Agree about online. Missing out on the paraverbal and nonverbal, that gives context to what we are saying. Best example I can give is how the tone, speed, and volume, as well as our body language of a sales clerk can tel you if they really want to help, or going through the motions. And yes that is everyone's concern I've talked to now save one. Had a chance to talk to our SM who was gung ho about girls joining because he has a daughter who is pumped up. And he now has some reservations about how the change.

@Eagle1993 I understand completely that you "do not want any child who has joined scouting to feel less than a full member." And I agree with that sentiment. But what I and many others who are against girls in the program, as well those who are for girls, are concerned about is changes to the program to accommodate girls to the detriment of the boys. If you look at the statistics, boys are currently being short-changed in our society. They are behind in school, they are being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD more than girls, have lower high school and college graduation rates, and more likely to get involved in crime. And it appears that there are no longer any national organizations dedicated just to boys anymore. But plenty for girls. I am also concerned about double standards being raised, as they already have occured. There was a thread about how it's OK for two female Scouters to work with all male Cub Scout dens by themselves, but two men cannot work with an all female Cub Scout den. Sorry, if you need a woman working with the girls, then you should need a man to work with the boys.

I'm linking these two quotes because they go together, just bear with me and read all of my comment before going ballistic. We already know that many parents today view convenience as being more important than development. Let's face it we see it with parents having their kids"earn" Cub Scout awards due to their parents signatures, parents pushing kids to advance, etc. BSA has hopped aboard that as their stated reason for "Family Scouting:" making it more convenient for families to have a one stop Scouting experience. As a result I see fewer and fewer all male Cub Scout packs in the future. And the bulk of our Boy Scouts come from Cub Scouts. If fewer and fewer all male packs exist, it stands to reason that fewer and fewer all male troops will exist, despite what national has said. We've already heard from volunteers in the field that they will ignore national's directives, even Early Adapter packs are having to "joint" all girl and all male dens meeting. And national just hedged on the All male and All Female troops with the "Linked Troops" that share leadership, meeting locations, activities, etc. If we use the UK as a model, all male units will slowly go away, leaving no option. When I was in the UK shortly after they went coed, there were still some all make units. But talking to some of the traditional Scouters, they said more folks are going to the coed units than theirs because of their siblings. They predicted at some point there would be no more all male units. While the Scout Association hastened all male units demise by mandating coed, I wonder what the numbers were from 1995 when I was there, until the coed mandate. So the only way I see all male troops continuing is by themselves without a feeder pack. In order to grow, they will need an active program, active recruiting strategy, and outstanding Scouters who know their stuff, usually with years of experience behind them. While extremely more difficult to do, troops without feeder packs can grow. My troop growing up didn't have a feeder pack for years. We had our ups and downs in membership until we got a feeder pack. But even with an active program and recruiting efforts, you may not be successful. One of the absolute best troops ever had no feeder pack, just an outstanding SM and dedicated adults helping. That troop lasted about 18 years before finally folding. When folks came to visit them, they also saw the next door troop, which was larger and had a reputation fro producing Eagles. Why would someone join the one patrol troop if they could join a multipatrol troop with a rep for producing Eagles? And let's be honest, how many troops have excellent Scouters? As someone stated at my district banquet last nite, dedicated Scouters tend to view the Scouts as 'their second sons." A lot of time, energy, and treasure is spent taking care of "my Scouts." So how do you think many of those old time Scouters feel when they believe that the National office is not listening to them? Let's face it, when National calculated the results of whether to accept homosexuals into the program, the footnotes states that Western Region's LDS membership was not included in the results. And even without those voices being included, you still had a slight majority against the membership policy change. Wouldn't you feel ignored if you were part of the majority, and national went against your wishes anyway? Regarding the current membership change, there is enough evidence to support those who believe that the decision to allow girls was made before the town hall meetings. Professionals in late 2016/early 2017 being told by the CSE of big membership changes coming is one example that people are showing to prove the decision was already made to go coed before the town hall meetings and poll. BSA publications becoming gender-neutral in July 2017 is another example of reasons people believe the decision was made before the town hall. The time frame of when national wanted the town halls to be done: a 3 week period that included time when many key volunteers are at jamboree is another example why many long time volunteers believe the decision to go coed was made prior to the town halls.. My Scout exec had a week to set up 2 town halls. Finally national is not reporting the data FROM THE MEMBERSHIP SURVEYS (emphasis, all data national is using to support going coed is from NONMEMBER surveys).For those against allowing girls in the program, this is one of the biggest reasons why they believe national does not listen: they won't report the members' survey data. Folks against allowing girls already have a lot of hard feelings. And some of the negative, un-Scoutlike attitudes they are encountering are not helping matters. In fact it is furthering their decisions to leave. And as Qwasze stated "...we need them...." We are going to get a lot more volunteers who have little to no Scouting experience and will not only need experienced trainers, but also mentors to advise and coach them. Let's face it, training doesn't provide everything one needs to know to be a Scouter. They need someone to mentor them and go to for advice. Trust me, losing those experienced, long time Scouters is devastating, especially if you have no one to fill their places. Having them gone does indeed leave a major gap that affects our Scouts. We lost many dedicated folks with the previous membership policy change. We lost commissioners, trainers, program folks, etc. that provided resources for the units in my area. That doesn't include the unit level Scouters we lost resulting in units closing down.

Wikipedia is talking about the old kits. A few years back they went to the trimarans

One reason why my sons' pack, with a few exceptions, i.e. religious requirements, has a Activity Badge Counselor do the signing off. One of my Scouts signed off on the Castaway requirements for middle son, and the ASPL signed off for youngest since SPL was oldest brother.

IMHO that is indeed the problem. Webelos IS the transition period between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Webelos IS when they go from parents signing off to Activity Badge instructors signing off. Webelos IS when they start going from "Do Your Best" to "Master The Skills." Webelos IS when they need to start doing more during their camp outs. Sadly I am seeing more and more packs and WDLs treat Webelos as a continuation of Cub Scouts rather than a a transition to Boy Scouts. I'll give you three examples of how transitioning during Webelos does work. My Webelos den growing up did more than the other 2 Webelos Dens. My den went camping on its own, had a Den Chief, and transitioned us towards Boy Scouts. My den Crossed Over into Boy Scouts and stuck around until an unfortunate incident that I transferred to another troop before it happened. My oldest son's den started the transition as soon as they became Webelos. They took on more responsibilities, upped the game, etc. They were prepared for Boy Scouts, and pumped up. 4 years later later, 1/2 that den is still active. And I bet if the other half would have transferred to another troop, they would be in it. In all honesty the closest I have ever seen a NSP work out well, was when those 4 were in the same patrol as new guys. If it wasn't for the new Scouts from 2 other packs, they would have rocked. Out of 5 Scouts from 2 different packs, 3 quit within a year, and the 4th quit within 2 years. The 5th one had a hard time adapting, and cried a lot on camp outs in the early stages. Dad would not let him quit. But talking to both packs CMs, the packs treated Webelos like standard Cub Scouts, and the results showed. They were not ready. Middle son's den was the same way: doing things on their own, taking responsibility, etc. 3 Webelos from his den joined the troop to work on Castaway for their last camp out as Webelos. THEY ROCKED! One Webelos had his shelter built, firewood collected, and was cooking his lunch before I finished my shelter! We got 4 Webelos from that pack, and all 4 remain 14 months later. Compared to the other pack's den which used the "do your best" standard and had parents doing the bulk of the work for them. Out of the 9 that crossed over, 5 quit in less than 6 months. 1 Scout has only been on two camp outs: summer camp and a nearby weekend trip. And 2 Scouts won't camp unless mom or dad is present. We had 3 Webelos Cross Over in December from the pack where the parents do it all. Of the three, 1 remains 2 months. His dad was a Scout back in the day, and began transitioning him 2 years ago, despite what the other parents were doing and encouraging him to do.