Back Pack

In our unit the SPL awards them.

The code doesn't matter but the training does. They must be trained for their position.

I assume everyone knows this but thought it stood mentioning.

Apparently Council posted that 'Yes, of course it is real' and implied I was stupid for asking. I don't know why I care I never filled one out anyway.

 

Our CC, who is a lawyer, said he will send them in to Council as a CYA even if it goes unread and if the new policy says 'no'.

Ours said the same thing...and he sells shoes.

Sorry, but if adults are offended by Scout humor they can find another troop. They're boys and boys have weird, odd humor. No safe zones or trigger words. Don't like it, leave. There's plenty of time for them to get offended and find safe zones in college.

Oddly enough, in my many years of Cub or Boy Scouting I've never heard a Scout complain about inappropriateness.

Do you think Stosh intends it as a compliment?

You didn't answer my question. Since Tenderfoot is derogatory should we get rid of that too?

Not exactly.

 

I think scouting prepares boys to be a big fish in a very small pond.  It doesn't take the next step of teaching boys to swim in the big pond.

 

Most of my scouts are afraid to swim in the big pond.  Their peers sense this.  I don't think boys scouts can lead their class mates if they are intimidated by them.

Speaking for my guys they have now issues leading outside of Scouts. Many are sports team leaders. Those not athletically inclined lead their debate or science teams or are first chair in their band. One is marching band leader leading 150 kids!!

All of these kids are great Scouts. Some Eagles and some not. All took our troop and district training. Many NYLT. A few NAYLE. The best kid I have is the quietest, mousiest Scout we have...best darn leader though.

Why is paper Eagle insulting? Tenderfoot can be equally insulting, no? It implies inferiority compared to others. Or calling new Scouts "greenhorns", Noobs, first-years, etc.? I know there are other examples on Scouting.

Not sure why we should keep some of these and throw out paper Eagle just because some are offended.

You missed:

- Opportunists looking for a reason to complain about a non-issue because they hate the politics of half of the US.

IMO what would be unfair is making scouts who finished the requirements and had their SMC at the last troop meeting of the year do the new requirements because we couldn't get a BOR together the last 2 weeks of the year (for various reasons)

 

As far as the original poster goes, it begs the question of why a BOR has not been completed before now and exactly when did he complete the requirements.  Just because you are involved in other activities does not preclude you from the rules everyone must follow.  Was there an attempt by the committee to be more flexible about their boards to accommodate the scout, why couldn't the scout speak to their coach about being late to or leaving early from practice.  I think honest answers to those questions should determine the answer.  Scouting is about character building, if the scout had any opportunity for a BOR far earlier than now and chose not to make an effort than it is on him.  On the other hand, if the committee did not make any effort to work with the scout's schedule, that needs to be accounted for (again, my opinion)

Then your unit leaders should have managed this better. You had over a year to prepare for this. The scouts should have known this.

It's not fair to the other kids who obeyed the rules. It's not honest IHMO.

So have people (been weaponizef) from some countries, and yet...

Answer: To leave Scouting as it is because we already have a coed program.

That's electronic device discrimination. Someone should protest.

I love the hair splitting here. SMCs are not BORs, so the rank is not done until the BOR is done. That's in the GTA. The Eagle exemption is for Eagle only. You're making up your own rules to suit you and that's unfair.

The Scout and unit leaders had well over a year to make sure their scouts were not impacted. Either the unit leaders or the scouts dropped the ball, but 1/1/17 was a pretty clear deadline. It's March, nearly April and this should have been handled months ago.

Not using the new requirements now is akin to cheating. Sorry.

Sure. Why trust the organization that creates the rules? Trust some guys on the internet instead. It's not your Scout that's risking anything.

Honesty, I read in this forum so many times folks saying, "check the source" or "show me the quote". Well the new rules are pretty clear: Earn rank by 1/1/17 or you have to use the new requirements. Not like units weren't warned or given advanced notice. We reminded our guys every month. SPL even had a count down so guys wouldn't forget.

It's 2017. New requirements are in force. But by all means just wing it and don't ask for clarification.

How would council know that he didn't complete the requirements using the new version? Internet Advancement doesn't keep track of individual requirements met.

 

It's now March, how would council (or National) know that in these first 3 months of 2017 he did or did not complete the new requirements for Second Class?  I could maybe see if it was January 5, say, and this came up, but we're 12 weeks into 2017.

I wouldn't risk it. What's the problem with contacting council to get a ruling?

I'd rather listen to Council instead of five guys on the internet with their opinion.

Don't worry, the NSA's data centers in the desert surely have copies of anything you've loaded in to the cloud.

I'm just reflecting what BSA has in the GTA and how EBORs can operate per those rules.  

 

IMHO, it's a good discussion whether or not councils need to approve projects.  Probably same argument whether districts/councils should approve the Eagle rank.  

 

Beyond that though, I like how it's setup.  Council can filter out during proposals some bad out of place projects.  Beyond that though, districts not approving projects is meant to be rare.  It's really the after-the-fact evaluation that happens during EBOR.  And even that is almost automatic as a project needs to be really out-of-normal to run into an issue. .... but some districts are not as supporting.  

They can "evaluate" all they want. They have no jurisdiction to fail a scout for theirnapproved project that's been signed off as complete by the unit Lead and beneficiarybb

How much time would/should border crossing time take? 2hours, 4hours, more? With cellphones and social media accounts being examined without a warrant at US border, what what be your electronics policy for trip?

 

If you mean US side of the border, warrants are not necessary, nor have they ever been.

I won't miss them.

 

I'm curious, has anyone ever had to cancel a trip because Council denied a permit, back when they were permits, or had to substantively change a plan because they were remiss in their plannings?

 

My guess is that thousands upon thousands of these things have been filed over the years without any appreciable effect on anyone's behavior.

 

I cannot think of any reason Council would need to know where my troop was going.  They're not going to be there to prevent any problems or help in any emergency, and if something does go wrong it's a near certainty that we'll be back home before they would know about it, so why would it matter that they knew of a particular campout ahead of time.

Yes actually. My pack was going to a state park that was not on the council list of approved facilities. We were told we can't go. This was before the online form.

We have units in our district which don't plan or staff their events to the minimum of the tour plan. As much as I hate paperwork it only takes 10 mins to fill this out and print it. Only needed if we go out of Council. Not a big deal and we will continue to do them even after they are taken down.

I'm with Flagg on this one. The board has no right to fail anyone. The requirements have been met.

Assuming that report is even real. Need both sides to know for sure.

I never had to file tour plans as a scout.

So you feel no safer knowing that states rife with terrorists and unable to control them, can no longer simply have their terrorists buy a ticket, use their valid passport and fly to wherever you are and blow up your local mall? Because now they have to get a forged passport and pass great scrutiny?

I suspect you don't fee safer when police patrol your street when a know murder is on the loose either. Please.

Cache.

It's is NOT a blanket ban. For Pete's sake people can we read a newspaper?

Here's the NY Times take on it and they are hardly Trump fans. Even they say it's not a blanket ban. A blanket ban would be for ALL people from those six countries. It doesn't!!!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html?_r=0&referer=https://mobile-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.amp.html?amp_js_v=9