Col. Flagg

Yes, agree. As I have said earlier, I would like to see both proposal and plan signed off before works starts. I'd also like to see the final report signed off on by the district/council rep. This would avoid the candidates being "shot down" at the EBOR. I would say 99.9% of guys never imagine that they could get denied at the EBOR.

I have to agree with a few folks here. The way the program is intended to run does not really work once in the field. My pack also struggled every year to find qualified leaders for all den leader positions. Finding another super den leader to run Lions just would not work. I can appreciate that BSA take time to design the program, but perhaps they should ask the folks in the trenches.

This is what the SM and TC Chair are for. If they are the ones doing the brow-beating, it's time to get new leaders.

I will jump in here... I agree. Once the proposal is signed off and the plan written, there's the execution. Then the final report is written, submitted and signed. If the beneficiary signs off on the final report, they are saying the project met their requirements. Same with the SM. The final report logs the differences from the proposal to the plan through execution. One does not judge the plan, per se, but they do check to make sure Requirement #5 and the aspects of the project met expectations and satisfied the requirements. So, in a sense, they are evaluating the final report, no

It sounds like the adults coaching this kid let him down. They are there to guide him and it sounds like that didn't happen.

I found this interesting. So units are supposed to come up with a Lion Guide, who is an experienced Scouter. Talk about taking away from the Pack. Usually the person that fits that role ends up being CM. If you are not staffed to roll out the Lion program as suggested in the PDF, I'd simply tell them you guys are not ready, Fred.

"Controlled Failure" is the term we use. We actually mention it as part of our recruiting. It keeps Bulldozer Parents from joining our unit. Our slogan ought to be, "If you can't stand to have your time wasted while kids are learning, we may not be the troop for you."

Try here. Says $20.

Sounds to me like the DAC needs to get on his Eagle coordinator at the district level and the SM/TC need to get on their Eagle coach. That said, you are right, the DAC can tell the kid where he *thinks* me may be lacking and give him this week to close the gap. Honestly, it sounds a bit less Pollyanna than it reads. Rather than looking for reasons to fail the kid, lets look for reasons to pass him. [meant generically, not directed at anyone]

Here's the problem though: The beneficiary, unit and district/council signed off on the Proposal and, I assume, the Final Report. If that is the case -- and it is unclear here if the latter was signed -- then it is the adults who screwed up here. @@dfolson has the following issues: Do any planning or development of his project. It was handed to him turn key from a city looking for labor. This will come out during the EBOR. The GTA allows for a verbal attestation as to the planning and execution too. I don't have the citation off hand, but I am nearly certain it is in there. Did no

We had this discussion in another thread. I agree with @krikkibot that once signed, the requirement is met and the proposal/plan is approved. I also personally do not believe the EBOR has any standing to "fail" a Scout UNLESS it was documented that the Scout failed to meet the requirement. For example, Section 9.0.2.7 says: This would excuse the Scout not using any of the suggestions given. They are called "suggestions" for a reason; they are not required to be used. Also, the onus here is upon the district/council "advancement administrator" to contact the Scout about any project

My God, you ask someone to "read carefully" and then you make the leap that a term "certain people" means Muslims instead of it meaning terrorists. Did you even read what you wrote before you wrote it. How about this: While the text refers to the term "certain people", could it perhaps mean people from ISIS strong holds in those countries? People with family or organization ties to ISIS? People who are on a watch list? No, of course not. Trump's a racist so naturally he meant Muslims, when, being the rampant racist he is, he's not touched immigration for the other 87% percent of Muslims in

Here is the text of the recent Executive Order related to travel from certain countries. Please highlight the section where the President "bans Muslims" or targets anyone because of religion. Thank you. Many of the most populace Muslim countries are not affected. Only seven: Iran (#6), Iraq (#12), Libya (#36), Somalia (#28), Sudan (#10), Syria (#19), and Yemen (#17). So out of 1.7b Muslims only 204m are subject to the ban. And it is a temporary ban. How it this anywhere close to a "ban on Muslims"?

And there's this... http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/26/despite-recent-concerns-fewer-canadians-are-denied-entry-at-us-land-border

And if they know how to cover their tracks through anonymous proxy servers, trojans and zombie servers, you won't be able to find them. Although I work in high tech my kids think I am a Luddite. That is, until I turned on their powered off iPhone and took a picture and sent it to them. That showed them that my concerns over their privacy was not overblown. It also illustrated for them why we did not allow them to have social media accounts until they were 18. No snapchat, no flickr, no instagram. Now they don't even miss it.

No one is being turned away for their religion. They are being turned away for their country of origin, residence or citizenship, and only from those countries that are known to have strong ties to terrorism and/or loose security. There are more Americans stopped, detained and searched for bringing in too much booze than there are Scouts of any kind being detained or denied entry for their religion. Seriously, let's be realistic here.

Well, one can pass the training and still make grave mistakes in judgement. For example, take weather training. There is a scenario in the module that says to be aware of weather far away from you and the impact it will have on you in your location. The example given is heavy rain up river. Would you still camp in an area that is obviously part of the flood plain even though it is an "approved" camping area by a BSA camp? Training and logic tell you no, yet some folks simply accept "it's a camp site so it must be safe" and camp anyway. Training is no good unless you apply it appropriately.

Frankly, I believe Eagle Scouts should be given a pass on IOLS when they become adults, especially if they re-up from Scouting as an 18 year-old. Leader training is more about the rules and regulations; something the youth don't get too much of.

FroggToggs. Best insulator/windbreaker, with a fleece and layers underneath.

Lawyers: The people who brought you a third gender.

I had heard this rumor too, that BSA was finding it hard to find an insurance provider and a company owned or run by a member of the board was the one picked to underwrite the policy. It does smack of conflict of interest but I am sure some lawyer somewhere has already looked at it and found it to be on the up and up. To the layperson it does should a bit shady. I certainly would not allow it if I were the head of BSA.

We had a few do food drives or a supplies drive for the homeless. Essentially, we went through the same steps we always did with more tangible (read:construction related) projects. We always ask Scouts to: Identify in a quantitative manner how they will document their demonstration of leadership. Talk through the planning of their project phases to make sure they have tangible milestones. Set objectives for what is a successful project. For a tangible project it is the completion of whatever is being built. For a food, blood or clothing drive the end result (quantity of items) is less clear,

@@RichardB, since I started one of those threads I will respond. First, tour permit versus plans. Okay, I will cop to using the wrong word. So we can agree that the thread title should be Tour Plan going away. My fault. But, your first post is not really clear. You say permits went away in 2011 and plans went away in 2012, but you give a link to process and document called Tour and Activity Plan. So you'll have to forgive our confusion because when we read "Tour and Activity Plan" we think "Tour Plan". There's no semantics there, we mean the process by which units need to complete the

Maybe he was hoping the new all-in-one Scouting channel (ScoutingWire) might actually carry that type of important news, rather than who is taking over various council positions. As it anyone outside of those councils would even care. Maybe the Scouting.org website would carry it? An internal memo to all CE to be sent to all districts? [crickets]

Are you talking about this video?