Tron

This was sort of known after the other vote failed. There is another council in NY merging in as well.

They're all still doing that from what I can tell, they are just not publishing them to the websites. My council will give you their plan if you ask for it but otherwise it's off the radar.

Why is this being driven by the committee chair? At the troop level the advancement coordinator is responsible for arranging boards of review. Additionally, though not the best option, a board of review can be staffed by parents, people from the community, basically anyone with some knowledge of the process that is not a member of the scoutmaster corps.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the wrongful death lawsuits from that range incident a couple years ago?

I would expand on this and have them discuss how their already good LNT habits have limited waste.

The module is just horrible. It fails constantly, leaders hate taking it because of stupid stuff like the soda can, and now that it's mandatory there's no way to know if your compliance is expiring without writing down when your renewal date is.

I don't think this matters. If seascouts can use nights slept on water why can't other scouts? Why would there be a double standard?

Saw your other post. At a district level event it would be the same as a council event, NCAP variances apply.

Does the troop have written expectations of positions of responsibility? Are there APL's that can step in for the sick and uninterested?

I would advise you to chase this as a program improvement point and not a punitive point. Raising it such as "I am concerned that without proper messaging and clarity the camping variance from the council event that our CC utilized might be viewed as allowed outside an NCAP environment. We don't want to normalize the view that we can just camp with who we want when we want. I want to make sure that in order to follow Safeguarding and the GTSS we understand that unit level camping outside of an NCAP regulated event doesn't allow this." versus "CC did this and I don't think we should allow it. What are we going to do to prevent this from happening again?"

Normally no. If this were a joint unit event outside of an NCAP environment she would need at least 2 leaders and 2 scouts from the Scouts BSA program level (preferably all from the same unit). But under a council event that is NCAP regulated there are all kinds of variances.

I see this, even with my own kids; I am constantly telling them no voice-to-text is allowed which forces them to have to spell at least. We're seeing some gap issues at the troop level still but we've undone the damage done at the pack level (Just instituting correction in the program from an adult standpoint). We're one and a half years out from the last covidish era patrol aging out, I suspect if we keep focusing on instituting the program properly on these successive crossover patrols we'll eliminate all of the problems as well. For skits one of the things I have noticed is that if we give scouts advanced notice and remind them to have something in the pocket for a fireside program they come prepared, if we ask them on the campout to have something they go right to the struggle bus.

I just looked at how Scouting America describes the sailing adventure options on the Seabase website and I would say that it does count towards 9a and 9b.

The ScouterDude has a good handle on the normal rules and practices in his post. The only thing I can add that would allow your CC to camp with that other pack is that there are different rules for council level events as those are under NCAP guidelines which allow provisional camping exceptions. As long as your CC spoke with the camp (probably program director) ahead of time she was probably within the rules. The real issue is why wasn't she camping with the pack doing her duty as CC?

God help him if he gets someone like my district advancement chair or the past previous. A board of review depends on the rank. For Scout - 1st Class my goal is 15min or less and focused on the scout experience and keying up on the best and worst experience of the scout on those rank journeys; I generally want myself and fellow board members to ask no more than 3 questions each. Star and Life I start asking multiple questions on the same topics, the boards start getting longer, 30-45min. I've sat on many EBORS over the year, they go long, too long, 2 hours or so, always a 6 person panel. National will not just give it to him. In my time we have only failed one person and national had no mercy for them or the troop. This is not the point of the BOR, especially not at the earlier ranks. These earlier ranks are gauging the scout experience, the health of the unit, blindspots to take back to the scoutmaster corps. Correct.

I think we're on a similar page from two different books. What I am getting at is that WOSM isn't set up to just have 1 NSO; it is the preferred method but not the only method. If the other national level organizations wanted to become the NSO then WOSM has a method of petitioning which forces a federated status as the NSO. So it's not like WOSM locks out other orgs/forces a first to the table situation; there is a way for younger better organizations to take the reigns (to some degree). As you point out two of the other organizations I listed (as examples, there are like 12 nationwide scouting organizations, maybe more here in the states) do not follow WOSM policies and their petitions would be declined. The others could file though. I think the reason why Scouting America is the NSO is that no other group wants to play exactly by the WOSM rules.

What they're really doing is setting this scout up for failure at his EBOR. Are your EBORS handled inhouse with a district rep or out of house with 1 troop rep?

This isn't quite accurate though. While there is 1 NSO (and that NSO is Scouting America here in the states), if GSUSA, Campfire, Rainbow Scouts or Trail Life wanted to become a WOSM member they can apply to WOSM and force a federation; however, those other large(ish) national level organizations don't want to federate for their own various reasons are thus locked out of WOSM.

OH YEAH I think Eagle94 has a valid point but ... I see your point, there are definitely a lot of 1940s crowd that I can understand feel bamboozled as the organization has evolved over the years. There is also the issue of all of BP's original writings, trying to reconcile the purpose statement from the congressional charter with the current aims and methods, etc ... what this organization is at the core is definitely something different than what most units/districts/councils are running. I will say that there are some evolutional things that people are fighting that is just absurd (use of technology for record keeping, stricter youth protection, updating of manuals to include modern knowledge/research into youth development and personal growth). If an evolution of the program does not contradict the congressional charter or BP's writings I think we should be open to that change in order to meet the needs of modern society and the survival of the program.

It can be a good position if the scout is on the outings and mentoring the rest of the scouts through the LNT process; they can also be used as a LNT specific Troop Guide for crossovers. The biggest problem with the outdoor ethics guide position is Scouting America licenses the LNT program from LNT.org and LNT.org has stopped providing their certification to people under 18. There was a time when you could get a willing Outdoor Ethics Guide to step up and go take LNT and come back with a serious case of saving the planet but now it's not an option.

I don't think anyone tracks that data. Even if someone at Scouting America did track that they probably have no idea where it is or how to use it. I was once asked by a DE to help restart a pack (due to the other local packs being too large) and I asked him what units had scouts from the CO and where were they currently meeting (if they had stayed in the program at all) and the best I got was deer in the headlights followed by an uncomfortable silence which was followed by a "great question my dude". There are a couple eagle mills just outside my district and I asked my DE to get the data on retention in those units (I was trying to build an argument as to why the local packs should not set up troop visits there) and my DE couldn't get the data. We found out that once a scout transfers or crosses up out of district it's as if they ceased to ever have existed in the district of origin.

I don't get the indian lore stuff at all; with all of the headaches, people looking for a fight, politically correct paths to navigate; the whole indian lore thing is a liability with no redeeming quality.

The people who never read the emails are #1. #2 is the people that transfer in from "bad units" or "failed units" and then won't shut up about how we should try what their old unit did.

I would recommend compartmentalizing this decision. When I am allowed to see numbers about units just about every council is in the same situation; an equal or greater number of troops to packs. The math is that in general you need at least 1 pack to keep a troop alive, you need 2 packs per troop in a district for the troops to thrive. The sad reality is that scouting in America is a pyramid scheme and right now we have too many troops. Some like to pitch it as we have not enough packs; however, the reality of demographics and social interest a higher number of packs have folded over the years compared to troops; so we just have too many troops. To your issue about council; we have too many councils, probably, easily, 100 too many councils. In general we have an infrastructure and organizational structure that never modernized with market conditions and technological advancements. Too many council administrators are fighting the future and just holding on for retirement.

The new requirements require a campout; an overnight stay in a tent.