pre-filled blue cards to share?

[mrjohns2 577]

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

That is the "must" and the "showstopper."

Please cite the source. I believe it says “should” not “shall”. So, maybe the must is just in your mind, but not part of the program. 

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Please cite the source. I believe it says “should” not “shall”. So, maybe the must is just in your mind, but not part of the program. 

Guide to Advancement, Section 7 (emphasis added)

"Since blue cards support the merit badge process as it is intended to function, the Guide to Advancement continues to reference and recommend them. It is expected that when blue cards are not used, advancement administrators at all levels will find ways to carry on the processes, interactions, documentation, and other nuances that make the process such a critical element in BSA mission achievement."

"The blue card has three parts: the “Application for Merit Badge” portion, the “Applicant’s Record,” and the “Counselor’s Record.” It requires a total of four signatures—two each from the unit leader and a merit badge counselor. The unit leader signs first on the front of the Application for Merit Badge portion and gives the entire blue card to the Scout. Each signature represents interaction with a registered adult. It is through this interaction and association with adults— the conversations, the counseling, the instruction and learning experiences—that mission-oriented Scouting takes place. This association must occur even if blue cards are not used."

 

[mrjohns2 577]

I thought I just read about this. From the national “advancement news” newsletter. I knew there was a should in there. Check it out. It “should” clear this up for you that the signature isn’t a firm requirement, but is part of the process. 
 

“GTA topic 7.0.0.3 states in part that “before working with a coun- selor or attending a group or virtual merit badge opportunity, a Scout should meet with his or her unit leader.” While this does not mean the merit badge will be denied if they do not, it does mean that, if at all possible, the Scout and scoutmaster should discuss in advance the merit badge and the presentation envi- ronment (in-person/online, group/individual, etc.). ”

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PUB-doc-JUL-AUG-2022-June-29.pdf

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

5 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I thought I just read about this. From the national “advancement news” newsletter. I knew there was a should in there. Check it out. It “should” clear this up for you that the signature isn’t a firm requirement, but is part of the process. 
 

“GTA topic 7.0.0.3 states in part that “before working with a coun- selor or attending a group or virtual merit badge opportunity, a Scout should meet with his or her unit leader.” While this does not mean the merit badge will be denied if they do not, it does mean that, if at all possible, the Scout and scoutmaster should discuss in advance the merit badge and the presentation envi- ronment (in-person/online, group/individual, etc.). ”

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PUB-doc-JUL-AUG-2022-June-29.pdf

And from the same newsletter...

"Each interaction with a registered adult is an opportunity for personal growth and learning on the part of the Scout. It is through this interaction and association with adults—the conversations, the counseling, the instruction and learning experiences—that mission-oriented Scouting takes place. (GTA 7.0.0.2) Shortcutting this process in the interest of efficiency robs the Scout of the opportunity to grow, which is the heart of the merit badge program."

Emphasis added.

Spirit of the law, rather than the letter...

[mrjohns2 577]

56 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Shortcutting this process in the interest of efficiency robs the Scout of the opportunity to grow, which is the heart of the merit badge program.

I totally agree. It is just not a shall, it is a should. 

[DuctTape 1230]

There is a problem when a newsletter and the GTA contradict, and worse when sections of the GTA contradict.

In this case, I do not see a contradiction. The "should" is specific to "before starting", but the conversation is still required and the SM signature acknowledges said conversation.