HelpfulTracks

No. To qualify for extension they must have never been registered as a Boy Scout. 

It should come up in the review process when the extension is requested. But it would not surprise me if some try and a few succeed in getting past the rules. 

3 hours ago, gblotter said:

 

I will also note that the LDS Safety Recommendations are 4 pages long, and I consider the guidelines to be rather common sense in nature.

LDS Safety Recommendations: https://www.lds.org/youth/activities/bc/pdfs/ym-activities/PD60004396-safety_eng.pdf?lang=eng

By comparison, BSA's Guide to Safe Scouting is 116 pages long. Enough said.

BSA's Guide to Safe Scouting: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf

 

Uhh, can we the LDS Church’s help getting that adopted by BSA before y’all leave?!?

On 8/30/2018 at 8:37 AM, MikeS said:

It was my understanding that the black robes were worn by the Arrowmen spectators, not the four Principals; they were in regalia. Is that not correct??

The work-around, as discussed in other threads on this subject (q.v.) is what I term "Standing Bear Productions, LLC" - no official affiliation with the OA or even BSA.  

 

I am struggling to remember who was wearing black robes in the Shows. But there was definitely 4 in robes, so at the time I assumed it was the principles, though I don't remember them doing in portion of any ceremony. It may have been the principles or may not.

I do know that this discussion that is being had is if to allow black robes as an option to the induction ceremonies. Nothing official on that front yet.

Principles may currently wear regalia (area specific by next NOAC) or they may wear Field uniform for all ceremonies.

5 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

OK so the program will be the same for both sexes.   But will it be the same as it is now?  or radically changed ? 

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say program.

If you mean the AIMs and Methods (camping, advancement, leadership et. al) I don't think it will change much.

If you mean moving to coed troops rather than single gender, I doubt that will change either. But it appears people who are much better at seeing into the future than me, already know that coed is a done deal. So if they are right, then that is a radical change.

What I cannot understand is this, if someone is a supporter of keeping troops single gender, as I am, then why not stick around and work to keep it that way. Leaving Scouting to those that want coed, because you fear it will go coed, seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

As a side note, I cannot reconcile how some of the same people who vehemently support/defend the Patrol Method will disregard/trash Wood Badge. Both of which are basically Bill Hillcourt creations.

The Patrol Method is an evolution of Scouting introduced by Hillcourt in the 1920's. Wood Badge was started by Baden-Powell in England, but had fits and starts here in the U.S. until Hillcourt got involved and just would not let it die. He ran through several iterations before it stuck. It continued evolve during his time in Scouting.

So if BSA training and Wood Badge are a detriment to Scouting and the Patrol method and are negatively impacting your individual unit, as some have said, why not get involved on the training side rather than dismissing it or talking it down?

An interesting note.

I have spoken with 2 different districts about round up in the last 24 hours. The Year over Year (unit to unit) numbers of new Cubs is up significantly.

Not really surprising, since this is the first Roundup to include girls. What is mildly surprising is that if you take the girls out of the registration, the numbers of boy Cubs is also up significantly. Now, it is still early in Roundup and things could change, but it is encouraging.

EDIT: We also have several ScoutsBSA female troops organizing, a couple with 20+ youth "signed-up" and 6+ NEW adults, along with 3-4 Adults with BSA experience.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Please tell me you are joking?

If you are not, please get SM Specific training ASAP!  

And if BSA training is encouraging this, and from reading the WB syllabus it is, then the BSA is truly dying. The Patrol Method will soon be in name only as patrols will no longer be allowed to do day activities on their own. And as Old School Scouters leave or die off. We will have a generation of Scouters who have no idea what Scouts are capable of, and should be doing. Scouts, BSA will truly be a Webelos 3, or AOL2, program with adults making all the decision, and the Scouts doing nothing. 

This is something I have been fighting with my troop for a few years nows: adults making all the decisions. The Scouts I've talked to are tired of it. The next camp out was arranged at the last minute, and it was done by the adults. It is something almost all of them have done, they are tired of the campsite, and won't be going as a result.

No I am not kidding.

As for training, I am a training chair and have and still staff many BSA courses.

I always emphasize (some would say to the point of annoyance) youth-led, youth -run and patrol method. Never do for a Scout what a Scout can do for himself does not absolve adults from their leadership responsibilities, which includes training, mentoring, guiding, safety, YP and policy. I am not sure how that equates to Weeb3 or AOL2, but both Baden-Powell and Hillcourt referenced adult leadership, so I am comfortable that I am what they had in mind.

As for my former troop, when I left the Scouts planned every outing, meeting and event. They ran everything from start to end. Other than things like Scoutmasters minute, securing, contracting and paying for the locations they selected for outings, making sure that we had enough transportation and that we were in compliance with the YPT and driving issues, the adults did not have much at all to do with the program. The SM and ASM's would give guidance with issues the Scouts brought to us, or maybe occasional whisper some question or advice into the ear of the SPL and PLs, but that is about it.

2 hours ago, DuctTape said:

How? if the adults are leading then by definition the youth are following.

https://scoutmastercg.com/where-is-it-written-that-troops-are-boy-led/

Because leading isn't synonymous to commanding. But even in command structures there are leaders besides those in command.

When I was in the infantry, the Captain was the company commander, he sets the direction (based on higher orders). But the 1st Sgt was also a leader, as was the platoon Sgt and Section/Squad Sgt. At each level NCO's were autonomous and were the leaders of the troops. The President as C-in-C is not the only leader in the military, there are literally thousands of leaders.

In Scouting adults lead by training, mentoring, and guiding, not commanding. Although, ultimately they are in "command" because they are responsible and will face consequences if they do not lead appropriately.

Boys run the program. They plan and carry out the program. The lead others during that process.

“Training boy leaders to run their troop is the Scoutmaster’s most important job. Train Scouts to do a job, then let them do it. Never do anything a boy can do.”
Sir Robert Baden-Powell (also quoted on page one of Troop Leaders Training, 2010 printing)

“Your Scoutmaster and other adult leaders will help Scouts become good leaders, then will step back and allow the troop’s youth leaders to take charge of planning and carrying out activities.”

“An important goal of boy scouting is that troops are scout-planned and scout-led.”

I would find a new troop. You can attempt to change this one, but with the time it would take you might well hate Scouting before it’s done.

good luck 

“Adult led, youth run” is absolutely consistent with “Train ‘em, Trust ‘em, Let Lead” 

9 hours ago, cocomax said:

The BSA best training I ever had as just sitting around with old timer scout masters and newly minted scout masters at summer camp talking for hours about the game of scouting, and life in general.  We talked about the fun times and bad times, what worked and what didn't.   Oh, the stories!

I can believe that.

27 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Effectively in terms of executing event or teaching scouts?  Exploration in terms of seeking a balance between the two?

Exploring differences and methods to effectively  communicate with youth of this generation.

I 

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

You do realize that SCOUTNET records are local. That is why when a member or volunteer moves from council to council, they must provide a copy of their records so that the council's database can be updated.

I wish it was not the case. Heck I was told by the then national SCOUTNET directors that records would be transferable in the database. Would have helped the 5 councils I've been in since SCOUTNET came into existence.

Scout net is not local. The tables maybe localized, which has nothing to do with were it is  physically located. But Scout net is certainly not local, unless you happen to live near the BSA server farm, which I think is in the Dallas area. (A pity they haven’t figured out the cloud yet)

Not too long ago, external apps could hit Scoutnets API, but that practice was ended or severely restricted. If there were 300+ Scoutnets out there it would be nearly impossible to sync with external apps, including Scoutbook.

Nice cover. Nice article. And she did it without bashing BSA. Nice lesson.

I will take it from your post that you haven’t taken Wood Badge, let alone staffefed it, and don’t have a clue what that section is about, beyond reading from a syllabus.

Yes, that is a very good presentation in Wood Badge. 

What were your thoughts when you took it/taught it @cocomax

It used to concern me when I saw Scouters leaving the program for any reason, particularly out of frustration.

But seeing supposed support for boys being turned into disdain and disrespect  for women and girls changes my mind. 

I will not miss that attitude. It is not something I could  never teach my son or any other youth. Apparently some think of women as second or third class citizens, or worse. So for those that think that way or talk that way, I cannot say thank you, I can only say don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

1 hour ago, Anniescout45 said:

Thank you all for the response.  I guess the twist to this story is why not have all leadership take these classes?  They have contacted only three people. 

Could it be those 3 are direct contact and others are not? Or may the others have already done it?

Nice catch!

48 minutes ago, Bowline said:

Great question.  From the guide to advancement.

7.0.0.3 The Scout, the Blue Card, and the Unit Leader
"A few merit badges have certain restrictions, but otherwise any registered Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or qualified Venturer or Sea Scout may work on any of them at any time."

So while they can earn them (or any venturer not in a troop) they just can’t wear them or currently use them for advancement.  

Interesting, I thought I had read somewhere that you could count work in one program toward advancement/awards in another program only if you belong to both programs at the same time (with a few exceptions). But that seems pretty clear.

Then again, it’s at least moderately plausible that BSA has contradicted itself in different places. 

1 hour ago, gblotter said:

Ah, I see. The only folks who could possibly support a Scouting program tailored for the unique needs of boys are rich and powerful men who want to preserve a right to "locker-room" talk. You forgot to mention privilege, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity in your argument. I'm glad to understand the color of your glasses.

You are deluded if you do not believe that boys behave differently than girls and develop differently than girls - especially at these ages.

A "mere" 5-9 point disparity in college enrollment is only one of many symptoms of the failure of boys in our society. By your dismissal, you are obviously one of the masses who don't care about this "non-problem".

I don't want to put words in qwazse's mouth, but I really don't think he is saying anything about tailoring a Scouting program to rich white boys.

I believe he is saying that a so called "girl-standard" should not apply here if you are using the Oath and Law as guides. I think he is saying that some men will use the excuse of boys will be boys and the concept of "looker-room" speech to keep girls out, so boys have free rein to use that type speech. Which I agree is ludicrous and certainly does not follow the oath and law.

I don't agree with him in this sense. I do think that having girls separate from boys is good because they mature at different paces and pre-teen and teen boys personalities change in the presence of girls. Some become more withdrawn and self conscious, others loose any concept of focus, others strut around like peacocks to show off for the girls. Still others struggle because of the differences in ways girls and boys process direction and criticism. These are some of the reasons I am a proponent of separate gender troops.

I don't get too much on discipline, unless you count how to deal with difficult Scouts, and there is plenty of that. Frankly, I get more about dealing with difficult parents by a large margin.

I don't get much about uniforms, but I also usually start training with a few points, one of which is I don't care for uniform police, but I do think it is important to model the correct wearing of the uniform. Maybe that heads off a lot of the discussion about uniforms.

I also talk about there is really no excuse for being sloppy. I deal with a number of units that do not have much if any money. They often have second or third hand uniforms. When a young man realizes that how he wears his uniform, even if it is just a shirt with jeans, is important, he takes on a whole new attitude of pride about it. It is fun to see.

Requirements issues are usually small ones that happen because adults don't fully read them. But they seem to happen frequently. Usually the response is "Oh, how did I miss that." My main focus on requirements is to make sure that all Scouts are doing the same work to reach the next level. I also don't want Scouts to get discouraged.

I frequently use "do not add requirements" and "do not subtract requirements." I also frequently use "read the requirements/what do the requirements say."

As a trainer I receive a great many questions about requirements. As a UC/DC I have involved in many disputes about requirements.

Off hand, and unscientifically measured, I would say that requirements issues, in one form or another, are a top 3 item I deal with. It is surprising when asked to go back and look at a requirement find that they have inadvertently added or subtracted from a requirement simply because they did not read it carefully.

In short, yes. The BSA policies are the minimum requirements in terms of leadership criteriaand youth safety. A CO may choose to strengthen requirements when it comes to safety of the youth. It may not add requirements for youth advancement.

On 8/22/2018 at 6:27 PM, MikeS72 said:

If that parent has registered they would be background checked.  That may or may not be the case, depending on the unit.

My personal opinion is that if you volunteer in any capacity, the unit should request that you register and undergo the background check.  Not everyone or every unit feels the same.

2 hours ago, mac266 said:

This is simply false.  *ALL* registered volunteers have a background check.  This is conducted by the local Council, not the unit.  The unit simply turns in the signed applicaton form to the Council. 

I may be reading this incorrectly, but I think what MikeS72 was saying, is that IF a parent is registered, a background check is run. HOWEVER, not every unit registers every parent (in fact few do), so a background check being run on an individual is dependent on the unit going through the process of registering all adults. At least that is how I read the post initially, because he goes on to say he personally believes a unit should register every parent that volunteers in any capacity.