Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'award'.
Found 2 results
I wanted to probe the notion that Boards of Review should be only for rank advancement. (E.g., Since Eagle Palms are awards they should not require a board of review.) Where did this idea come from? Not from the handbook, as far as I can tell. Scout is now a rank. Even so, it requires no boards of review. Venturing does not have ranks, but they do have awards. The core ones require boards of review. (Okay, Venturer requires a "meeting" with the advisor and crew president.) We have sent some scouts to disciplinary "boards of review" ... ones who've started tuning out the SM and needed to hear that some other adults were expecting better behavior from them. You all can debate how kosher that is, but it's helped us get through some rough patches. So, in my mind, sometimes a scout was up for review, sometimes he wasn't. Those times weren't ever distinguished by a rank vs. an award being in play. Is this something that anyone wrote about? Taught in a course? If you thought this was the way things should be, can you recall who gave you the idea?
I had a Scout earn the National Outdoor award - Camping last night. My advancement chair had problems getting it at the Scout shop as no one knew anything about it. Link to award I've only seen 1 other Scout in this area with the award. Do your Scouts earn this? Are they aware of it?