fred8033

@Eagle94-A1 is right. For advancement, read BSA/SA Guide To Advancement. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf Section 4.2.3.6 Fulfilling More Than One Requirement With a Single Activity "At times it may be appropriate for a Scout to apply what was done to meet one requirement toward the completion of another." Your situation is also explicitly answered. "Some requirements may have the appearance of aligning, but upon further examination differ. These seemingly similar requirements usually have nuances intended to create quite different experiences. The Communication and Citizenship in the Community merit badges are a good example. Each requires the Scout to attend a public meeting, but that is where the similarity ends. For Communication, the Scout is asked to practice active listening skills during the meeting and present an objective report that includes all points of view. For Citizenship in the Community, the Scout is asked to examine differences in opinions and then to defend one side. The Scout may attend the same public meeting, but to pass the requirements for both merit badges the Scout must actively listen and prepare a report, and also examine differences in opinion and defend one side."

Just thinking ... Just like current DOGE, I'm not sure it's really true savings. A good CE would raise at least his salary in donations to the council. Will reducing CEs reduce total donations? Do people donate because the top dog (the CE) asks for the donation ?

I'd hope. If the average salary cost is $50,000 (low considering we also have executives, directors, etc) and that a council probably needs at least three staff (probably way low), the per-scout council cost is at least $150. I assume the majority of council finances happen thru donation or endowments. Even then, council finances have never made sense to me. I don't understand how small councils can stay in business.

Agree with much that you wrote. Big dollar payouts to those in the legal system drove this case. But then again, that's how the system is setup. I watched the monthly bankruptcy billing invoices that paid firm partners far over a thousand an hour, other lawyers at $600 plus and hour and para-legal staff charging hundreds per hour. The whole case is about getting money out of deep pockets. Spent money won't be recovered. Courts approved the payments. The legal system won't start a major case against itself. Plus, it can be argued that this is the nature of complex cases especially when the Supreme Court changes case law interpretations. Legislative momentum for this has fallen off. Perhaps, a few states could start again. BUT, I really doubt it. It's old news at this point. Could very well be and it could be a good thing. It's more important to get youth outside having adventures than focusing on a single national scouting organization. This is where we all have different opinions. "My opinion" is that this case has never been about justice and accountability. This is about finding someone to blame for the ills of society.

I've heard lots of good exit interviews. The real challenge is reaching a meaningful solution such as just focus on outdoors, camping and fun. Then, let the rest happen naturally result.

What about 27 thru 82 years old ?

Age limit for Eagle ... I've turned the corner on this. I'm thinking this might be a good thing. * Some adults want to work on skills at the same time as their kids. ... Example - Karate black belt * Some adults want something in their life to work toward. * Some adults want to make up for opportunities lost as a kid. * Many adults are lonely and seeking friendship and social connections. IMHO, I don't see harm in this. Perhaps a correction to scale rank requirements should to age and capability. Perhaps keep the same.

My sons each have at least 100+ qualifying nights. If the troop is active, it's not hard. Opportunity exists for 7 years * 12 months * 2 nights a month = 168. Add summer camps ... now 203. Add other special high adventures. ... Two of my sons worked at scout camps. I swear one of my sons probably had 300 nights in a tent before he turned 18. 20 nights is low bar to pass.

Odds are it will work better or reasonably well. Individual YPT situations can be addressed. Also, similar YPT challenges exist in the other approaches too. IMHO, lots of this can be solved by focusing on activities and adventure more than the theoretically perfect way to run a troop. Follow YPT 100%. Beyond that, all the learning happens naturally by focusing on being an active, adventurous troop.

Though I always differ on "age based" and "traditional patrols" and NSPs, I 100% agree on a few key points. 100% agree ... Adults "screw things up. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.". Let the scouts decide ... with very minimal guidance ... and try to balance patrols (somewhat with many caveats). Even this point... I've often seen adults saying the scout's are deciding, but then I watch and the adults subvert the scout's independent decision making. Scouts want to be with their friends. The best patrols are where the patrol are (or become) friends and want to spend time together. ... Since the scouts plan, camp, cook, eat, sleep, game, and go to activities together, it really helps if the scouts naturally want to spend time together. IMHO, patrols start to fail when scout ditch their patrol to spend time with their friends in another patrol. Perhaps the scout should be in the other patrol then? IMHO, new scout patrols work well when 10+ join at the same time and NSPs are used to rapidly get scouts up to speed. But, there is no reason to keep those scouts in that patrol long term. Let the scout's decide.

Wow. So much of what you wrote seems extremely predictable. BUT, we've seen that happen many times in scouting. My scouting days are over mostly, but in my two decades as a leader, the registrar was critical to fixing so so so many issues. In fact, the registrar was pretty much the only person who could fix unit specific issues.

That's the grey area. Similar things can be said for band booster clubs, but IRS did go after them. Individuals are charged for their experiences. If only one kid (the kid who earned the money benefits), then that's a strong argument for private benefit. On the other hand, if the scout has $10,000 in his account because he raised $50,000 for scouts, then it can be argued it's an incentive that raised more money for scouting than if the private benefit incentive was not there. There is nothing new here. No new information or updated guidance.

Great point @InquisitiveScouter !! Always answer with an authoritative reference when possible. Eagle scout service project workbook, Guide To Advancement and Guide To Safe Scouting are great tools.

To clarify ... I've seen good district commissioners, roundtable commissioners and such. My criticism is very specific aimed at the "unit commissioners". I believe the concept of "unit commissioner" is fundamentally flawed.

Contingent representation means a percent of the award instead of billable hours; usually. The lawyer won't earn more money by returning the client's calls. So not getting a response in a large class action is not surprising. Effectively contingent cases means less earned per hour with each extra hour invested. The least hours invested the better for the law firm.