fred8033

Beavah - Hmmmm.... I have alot of respect for ya, but now your just blowing hot air. Your mis-framing this debate into two camps. Requirements focus versus quality of scout focus. That's not the case. And it has never been the case. It's not two camps at all. It's about multiple topics. - How do you deliver a good program? - How do you set expectations? - What do you do when you get a scout from another troop? - What do you do when a troop messes up? - What do you do when you don't think a scout deserves advancement? I think we're in pretty strong agreement on several, but we're clearly differing on others. I think we agree on how to deliver a good program and accepting a scout from another troop. .... How do you set expectations? - IMHO, expectations are either enforcable and not enforcable. We need both types. But to make an enfoceable active participation rule, you make it measurable, write it down, establish it at the start, communicate it and make it consistent with BSA publications. Beavah: "Yeh just have to have a common sense of character and commitment that's consistent." Yeah I don't buy that at all. It scares me. That's how we damage people and create grudes ... usually when leaders change or people disagree. Ya just can't enforce intangibles. GTA page 21 says "Units are free to establish additional expecations on uniforming, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc, but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement." (requirement being active participation). GTA also says "his unit's pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity". So units need pre-established expecations. IMHO, they are not pre-established if they are not written down. So if the scout is not meeting your unit expectations for behavior, supplies, dues, parental involvement, etc, then you can ask him to change or leave the troop ... because he's not meeting your unit expecations. But you really can't say he's not fulfilling BSA's active participation requirement. To target active participation, you pretty much have to establish percentages (i.e. ... LEVELS ...) of troop meetings, camp outs, activities, volunteer service, etc. And ya write it down at the start. Not three years into the scout's membership. And ya definitely don't say "well we just don't feel you are active enough". And it's just not right to say "we just don't feel you are committed enough". Did the scout do his POR? Then he's committed enough. ... What do you do when a troop messes up? Depends. But for advancement, a completed requirement stays completed. We're not talking about forged signatures. We're talking about a BSA leader after-the-fact wanting more. At that point, the requirement is done. So a scout sat in the troop for four years. In the 4th year ... because he wants to earn eagle ... now you want to tell him he's not active enough? Come on. A dis-service has been done to this scout for the last three years! Whether or not he's going for Eagle, you should be letting him know pretty quick that he's not meeting troop expectations. And ya do it really quick because he only needs six months (or four for earlier ranks). But in his forth year? Too late. He completed the requirement with his POR. He completed the requirement again with his first six months in the troop. And again with his next six months. And again with his next six months. And again with his next six months. etc etc. Heck if it was swearing, you'd talk to him. You wouldn't go thru three years of swearing only to learn he's going for Eagle and then talk to him about his swearing being incompatible with advancement. This is about when troops mess up and don't deliver the scouting promise. A weak program. In-appropriate signed offs. Not establishing unit expecation. Not communicating expecations until the 4th year. When the troop messes up, ya don't blame the scout. You fix the program and move on. ... What do you do when you don't think a scout deserves advancement? This is my main concern. At that point, you do fall back to the BSA requirements. When two people disagree, you fall back to the original agreement. That agreement is the BSA rank requirements. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we are to be honorable leaders, then we honor the requirements as published. ... IMHO, a key principle is scouts control their own advancement. Not the adults. That's why there is explicit criteria laid out in 280 approximate requirements. You complete those and you earn advancement.

ZZZZZZ zzzzzz ......

Beavah wrote: "SpencerCheatham's unit did meet with the lad well nigh a year in advance, explain that he hadn't yet met and wasn't meeting their active and Scout Spirit requirements, and spelled out clearly what the expectations were. They reinforced that several times. From where I sit, they met all of the unit expectations detailed in the current Guide to Advancement." Yeah - well I sort of see that as three years too late. Here's the points that I see. .... #1 The scout had a POR somewhere. I'm assuming it's with his previous troop. If the scout completed his POR, he's been "active". Otherwise, he don't credit his POR. I'd really enjoy being on the Eagle BOR and asking why a scout was credited with POR but not active. It would be very interesting. And I don't think the scout would be the one feeling the pressure. Perhaps a good debate is do you accept completed requirements from a previous troop if they are not reflected in ScoutNET or some official source. IMHO, you do. But it really seems here that this is the issue. I know when we've had transfers we've called the previous troop SM to ask questions. Reasonable thing to do. #2 It's not active in the last year. It's active for six months cumulatively since becoming a life scout. So we're talking about a FOUR YEAR SPAN where the scout paid dues, was on the roster and attended meetings. 30% of meetings, but meetings still. #3 Standards for performance need to be established BEFORE, not after. Four years in the troop! Approaching him in his last year saying you expect more is moving the goal posts and denying credit for where credit is due. It's trying to slip a fast one by the scout. So if you notice a scout is not active enough, talk to him one or two months into the time frame. Using the GTA POR policies, I'd also ask him how much time he thinks he should receive as "active" and go with it. But at least going forward for the next four months expectations have been set. #4 Standards are only standards if applied to everyone. By definition, a standard is not on a case by case basis. Yes per the GTA troops can establish their own reasonable standards for active. Write the standard down. Publish the standard. Communicate the standard at the start (or at the point of change). So unless every scout is being asked to organize and run a camp out and activity, then it's not really a "standard" by any sense of the word. .... IMHO it comes down to that BSA has designed plenty of discretion points into the advancement program. There's about 280 of them.. Ten for the scout badge. Ten average for each of the six ranks. Ten average for the twenty one merit badges. So we have a scout who's been deemed acceptable on all but one ... "active". It really makes me wonder. Could more have been done to engage the scout, sure. Could the scout have done more to be a strong member of the troop, sure. Give credit where credit's due. He met BSA's expectations. If the SM and CC don't feel the scout met some unwritten definition of "active", that's their business. IMHO that says more about the troop and it's leadership than it does about the scout. ... Just don't play a games with advancement. High expectations are great. I'm all for it. Don't sign off on requirements until they are done. But to "game" advancement after-the-fact is just mean and a bad example for our scouts.

I've seen several scouts like this. I don't have any magical advice other than to work thru it. But I would love to hear some good advice.

Sure advance him. It's an honest conversation. I'm sure there are many kids in his situation. At least he was honest and not hiding things.

Weird as it is, I like reading IRS and state tax revenue documents. It's fascinating stuff to try to really understand. Really. Anyway, it's not entirely correct to say the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the tax. It's more like the 14% of the population in the 36% - 50% of income bracket pay 2.7%. The lowest 36% pay no income tax. The lowest 25% get "credit" for taxes paid that amount to around $60 billion or about 5% of all income taxes collected. Just saying that if you factor in credit given, the bottom 50% of the population actually pays a "negative" 2.3% of the taxes collected. I'm not arguing against EITC. I'm just saying taxes are no where as punitive as stated.

Beavah wrote: "Now the lad who struggles with his chosen sport, who comes to every practice for four years, who makes every game even though he rides the bench much of the time, who cheers for and supports his comrades - in many if not most sports programs, that boy will get a Varsity letter in his senior year. He has demonstrated commitment and character throughout his career." Yeah well... Probably not the best analogy. We don't hand Eagle out to any scout who stays long enough. In fact, I know plenty who argue against awards for just being there ... including you I believe. You need to demonstrate the criteria laid out for the achievement. I think this is why BSA has worked pretty hard to define explicit criteria for each rank. So that it doesn't become an attendance reward. So that it stays under the control of the scout. So that everyone knows what's expected. IMHO, I think scout A did fine. If he moves on, fine. Maybe for him, he's got all he can get out of scouting. Let him learn more life lessons elsewhere. ... Ya know Eagle only requires six months of being active. Odds are if a life scout is in your troop for four years, he's probably easily fulfilled the active requirements. I'd be more concerned with the scout pushing the other envelope the other direction and trying to advance with five months and 25 days when six months are required. ... On a side note, I find it interesting that Arthur Eldred completed his eagle requirements in about 18 months. But his board of review did include practical tests on merit badge expertise. Interesting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

OldGreyEagle - Eagle. Every scout has his own path. Some fast. Some slow. Some outstanding. Some just scraping by. Each scout has his own path. I remember a scoutmaster who kept singing the praises of this young scout and kept saying the scout was definitely eagle and SPL material. Yep the kid earned eagle and became SPL. But in the end, the kid lacked humility and empathy and was sort of pompous. I kept thinking that this kid was affected by the SM's special comments in the same way kids are affected when parents say the kid can't camp without them. ... As a devil's advocate... Perhaps if cases like this are tough, then the real option is to not accept those scouts into the troop. You won't have enough explicit requirements to use to hold the scout accountable. Oh. A 13/14 year old life scout and only have four badges and one project left??? Already got the POR / active part done? Hmmm... Probably not a good fit for our troop as there's not much left in your scouting journey. I'm not really advocating for this, but it's sort of what I'm hearing. The scout could have camped more. The scout could have stepped up to help others more. BUT ... he'd already completed the BSA requirements. There's usually alot of wishing involved when we talk about shoulda coulda woulda. Just be happy the scout valued scouting at the level to finish the badges and perform the project. Congratulate him on his achievement. ... On a side note, it feels like there's a joke in here somewhere. An Eagle BOR is staffed by a pastor, a laywer and an engineer. (Switched priest to pastor to avoid Catholic bashing). They face a 14 year old scout with 70 nights of camping and 30 merit badges. The pastor congratulates him for being such a dedicated loyal scout. The lawyer congratulates him for completing the requirements as published. The engineer questions the scout's commitment to the Scout Oath's mentally awake because the scout had 49 more nights of camping and 9 more merit badges than needed. I wish us engineers were better at writing jokes.

I've heard of people using insulation sheeting (Owens Corning Foamular F-150 1 inch x 48 inch x 84 inch). One sheet should be plenty to cut into numerous boats. Get some dowels. Get some construction paper. Nice quick craft project. Only concern I have is the mess from cutting the foam. I'm not sure how messy it is though. We were planning to try it.

Beavah - I've got alot of respect for your well informed rationality and logical conclusions. But I think this is our constant difference of position. I believe the whole scouting environment is to be used to teach lessons and develop character. I'm all for high expectations and a solid program. But advancement is only one of the eight methods to be used to achieve our goals. ... The issue I have is that the advancement program is a commitment to the scout documented in his scout handbook. It lists specific steps to earn the next rank. It's a commitment that when the scout completes those requirements, he's earned his rank. For this scout, he completed his POR. IMHO, logically it's impossible and practically it's almost impossible to complete a POR without automatically completing "active". Again, IMHO, after a requirement is met, the requirement can't become incomplete again. So now, he's being asked to do more to show he's active, to show his commitment to scouting, to show he's earned his rank. Again IMHO, asking for more or deeming him unworthy is a horrible lesson to teach. It teaches that goal posts can be moved. That people will manipulate the rules for their higher purposes. That not everyone will be on your side. That you shouldn't necessarly trust those put in place to help you. The most important lessons we teach are taught by how we conduct ourselves. High expectations, great! Knowing how the program works, great! BUT, the most important is being fair, trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, etc. And giving credit where credit is due. ... If you look back over this scout's last four years, I'm betting scouting has affected this scout's character and taught lessons. He's done four merit badges and an eagle project. And he has good character traits as described earlier. So that's involved the BSA methods of ideals, association with adults, leadership development, uniform, personal growth and advancement. Again IMHO, this exact situation calls for celebrating the scout's achievement and congratulating him. Nothing else.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

acco40 wrote: "I agree, if a unit is struggling with "who's the boss" the unit is doomed." Fully agree. What you said is key. We achieve by working together. We fail by putting up walls. BUT ... It's still very useful to understand how things are designed or documented. http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Image:Boyscout-troop.gif I've seen it in several manuals. I think one was the Troop Committee Guidebook. I've also seen it in other documents but don't have them with me. Need to look it up. I've found several for packs. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack.aspx ... acco40: "The committee, the Scoutmaster or complete strangers may lobby the charter organization to remove adults leaders but only the charter organization may do so." Actually, it's pretty easy to remove leaders from troop membership. I can do it by going to the scout office and asking a person be removed from our roster. It's adding a person that requires both my signature (CC) and the COR. ... acco40: "It is not the committee's responsibility to approve or disapprove the program that the youth, in conjunction with your guidance, develop." Pretty much agree and I've never seen it happen. But "strictly speaking" the troop committee can reject the program. It's a simple reporting hierarchy. If the committee / committee chair disagrees with the program, they can direct changes occur. (never seen it happen). And if the SM won't make changes, then they can replace the SM until the program is as desired. ... As for forms ... LOL ... I've been working with the BSA forms for years. I never thought about the signatures. But it makes perfect sense. Cubmaster / scoutmaster signs off on youth. CC & COR both sign off on adults. LOL. I've been CC/COR for so long and have had the blessing of CM & SM to sign my name ("or designee") on the youth form. I forgot about the differences.

SpencerCheatham - I'm saddened by your comments. Luckily this scout made his way home before you and your fellow leaders "knew better". ... I don't know this scout, but given that you said "He is a polite, intelligent, reverent, hard working young man who lives the Scout spirit outside of Scouting." You also said he completed the explicit requirements to earn eagle. Merit badges. Position of responsibility. Project. Previous ranks. ... SpencerCheatham wrote: "Instead he chose to be more active in other extracurricular activities." What I'm hearing is that you and your fellow scout leaders are upset that most of this scout's journey was not done with your troop. You knew enough about him to judge him polite, intelligent, reverent, etc. But you wanted more. Would he have been a more worthy Eagle scout if he had just completed those last four badges and his project several years earlier? All I can say is send him my way. I'd be glad to help him find a supportive troop that will support him complete HIS scouting journey. ... Our troop had a scout in this exact situation. He hadn't changed troops at the point of the problem, but was very busy for the last two years and all the troop leaders changed over in those two years. They wanted to get to know him and see him step up. But he had already completed everything that was required. He even had a signed Eagle project workbook. He stood his ground and I'm very impressed for him doing that. His troop stood it's ground. So, he transferred to our troop and we were glad to help him take the few final steps to receive his earned Eagle rank. ... As for practical tests to earn Eagle, fine. Talk to BSA. Get them to change the advancement process. Until then, don't complain about the scouts or expect more than is required. Our job is to support the scouts and hold them accountable to BSA's requirements.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Horizon wrote it dead on. The one thing I'd add is that by the time boys hit 14-15 most scouts are just repeating the same experiences and camping trips over and over again. By the age of 14 /15 ... Four or five weeks of summer camps. 30 to 55 weekend camping trips. 100 to 180 troop meetings. It's entirely natural, and to be encouraged, for a fifteen year old scout to want new experiences ... sports, school plays, choir, jobs, dating, etc. Plus we want our Eagle scouts to be outgoing, inquisitive and exploring other opportunities. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Bylaws - Waste of time - Agreed. short guide for new parents - Useful.

Basement wrote: "The CC and CM are peers. The CM does not work for the CC or vice verse. The COR can remove you at any point or time for any reason. The Cubmaster is appointed by the COR. The COR can pick how ever he wants. Practically, you are correct. In a well run pack with leaders who are all friends, you are correct. But technically, the CC runs the pack committee and the CM reports to the committee. CC and CM are not peers. Same with troops. SM reports to the committee led by the CC. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack.aspx So yes in the long run everyone reports to the COR (except the COE) in the same that everyone reports to the CC except the COR and COE. As for who is responsible for new leaders including the CM, it's a combination of the CC and COR. CC is to guide the process and make sure it happens. COR though has final approval. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/06-801.pdf (page 10) http://www.scouting.org/filestore/commissioner/pdf/33118_WB.pdf (page 5 and 8) In reality, packs can use any process they want to choose leaders.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: "Fund raisin' apps should be dropped. If we can't get it together to approve a project and its fundraisin' at the same time, that's our problem, not the boy's." I was ready to fully agree as I don't see much use for it. The project plan already has a place for a description of how the project will be paid for and how much money is needed. In our district, we already have one guy that signs both the project plan and fundraising app. One meeting. I don't see any need for second form. BUT ... then I just double checked the form ... "Are there contracts to be signed?" ... "If so, by whom?" ... "Contract details" I don't know the right answer. I know the form did not add any value to my son's project and he raised $1800. But I could see a larger project needing higher approval levels. I don't know the right answer.

Does it honor the flag? Does it show respect? Is it a good example to set? If so, go for it. IMHO, the issue is "... but candidly a little blah". And this might be another thread. Our troop's COHs, except Eagle, are pretty casual. Slide shows. Announcements. Scouts awarding scouts. Handshakes. Funny stories. Scoutmaster moment. It's actually a very enjoyable experience. And given that we have four per year, we did not want to make them like sitting through a 90 minute junior high violin concert. I've been to a few COH's that are down right painful. All you think about is how uncomfortable the chair is and how much time is left.

Eagle732 wrote: "fred, when our boys send in the fundraising app they keep a copy of the signed form for their book and send in to council the original. We never (even when sending in troop fundraising apps) get anything back verifying that it was received or approved. But the eagle candidates to have a copy of the signed form." Is the council signature line signed? That's what I was wondering. It sounded like a strange process. There's nothing in any eagle process that we have about submitting the fundraising paperwork to the council. The DAC person signs the fundraiser form too. He's the designated council approver. At that point, we're done. No need to do anything with the form. I was just wondering because it sounded like in the discussed process the scout would never have a form with the "council" signature signed. I must be mis-understanding something. Because if it's signed, why wait? But if not signed, you send it in. But you only hear back if it's not approved? But then you don't get a signature. I guess I don't understand something.

Two different questions - Hardest to fill? Treasurer. It's hard to fill because the person needs to be committed to spend hours with scouting on paperwork during off-scouting hours. Their main preparation for scouting meetings is to prepare reports and chase money. Not to mention the person needs to be fairly organized and slightly technical savy. What would you hand them if they walked in off the street and wanted to volunteer? Something fun. Something specific. Organize and run and event. Run a program segment for a pack meeting. As specific as possible and as fun as possible. Something to get them ownership of the unit.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Packsaddle ... Revisionist history? I'm not an expert in this, but it's easy to see the topic is way more complex and both sided than your representing. And your throwing part of the truth out is just a way to defend your position without honest reflection. ... In 1537, another pope issued Sublimus Dei strongly condeming slavery with concepts such as rational beings with souls and slavery was driven by satan. In 1542, Spain was also the 1st nation to ban colonial slavery. The Christian / Catholic position on slavery has evolved over time. And then when you read about historical slavery discussed in the Bible it was usually discussing "just slavery" where an individual sells himself or another family member to pay debt. Very much related to the concept of an indentured servant. There were rules on how to treat such a person, how long it could go for (i.e. not indefinite), etc. One rule was that you could not enter just slavery thru capture. In 1839, Pope Gregory issued Supremo Apostolatus which condemned slavery and specifically the slave trade. Yes some american bishops did make legalistic arguements about trade versus own. But there was also a huge Catholic abolisionist movement. ... One point that I found really interesting is that when Mexico opened up Texas to american settlers, the settlers could not legally bring slaves in because Mexico (Catholic) did not allow slavery. (ummmm... The United States was founded essentially as and largely still is a protestant nation.) Of course Texas is also not an easy analysis. Lots of politics. Lots of situational issues. Lots of specifics. ... Anyway ... I'm providing just as much a choppy analysis of history. Catholic church was and is not perfect and has never been insulated from the politics of the times. But it's just a smear campaign to point your finger as your doing.

BadenP - Get a grip. Your wantonly uninformed hatred is driving you to irrationality better suited for Jerry Springer than rational society.(This message has been edited by fred8033)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: "Gumbies are hikin' down the trail with stuff lashed on, clipped on, or draped on like wilderness hobos." LOL. That was me about six years ago. I've been so focused on the current squeaks that I totally forgot about that first time. You quickly learn to not hang a water bottle. They are heavy. With each step, it wack'ed me. Not cool. That changed pretty fast. Any advice on the squeaks? I was thinking because I've got the expandable frame expanded to max. Comments?

Eagle732 wrote: "The troop's policy is we don't sign the fundraising app until the book is completed through to page 17 (fundraising app) and reviewed by us. Anyone else dealing with this? " Yes. We just require what the eagle book requires. That's thru page 10, not 17. If fundraising, he fills out that form and we sign it. Both the workbook thru page 10 and the fundraiser app is reviewed and signed off by the district advancement coord. Happens in one sitting usually within a few days of the eagle candidate requesting district approval. After that sitting, he uses the final plan (pages 11-17) and other documents as necessary to plan and run his project. There is room for interpretation. I don't agree with the interpretation, but your troop might find it useful to interpret it differently. It's probably not that big of an issue either way. ... Eagle732 wrote: "I don't recall ever getting anything back from council on a fundraising app. We just send them in and do the fundraiser and never worried about the waiting period." Huh. That's a new view. Never thought of it. I've been reading that, when the project is done, the scout needs to submit his workbook for his BOR and processing. So your saying the workbook would contain a Fundraising application that didn't have all the signatures? Huh. That's interesting. Not sure what I think about that.

"And then, the fundraiser form states that he must wait for 2 weeks before even contacting the business where he intends to do his fundraiser or the stores from which he hopes to secure donations of materials" Agree with previous poster. This is a mis-reading. The form says the following. Eagle Workbook quote: ""... and then submit the fundraising application to your council service center at least two weeks in advance of your fundraising efforts. You will be contacted if it cannot be approved or ..." IMHO, it means you need to schedule two weeks to get council appoval. But if the council designated rep approved it, then your good to go. The waiting time is over. It's just a warning to make sure you plan two weeks to get through council beaurocracy.

Tampa Turtle - Great points with very good reasons. "... but truth be told they were not the best examples of Scouthood to start with. " .... I've seen that tool. I think it's the age though as they test new more challenging boundaries such as dating, work and friends that drink or do drugs. In a way , I like the insullation of similar age patrols because older scouts tend to have more "interesting" conversations. Also, it's nice to not have older-scout attitude rub off on younger scouts. But that's me. I guess it comes down to what the troop wants and is hoping to achieve. When I look at my first two sons, I really like the experience my older son had. I'm sad for my second son because his patrol which has changed sever year to 18 months just has no identity and they break up to go be with their friends anyway. Sort of sad. Maybe it could have been done better. I don't know. I just know both of my sons started Boy Scouts with strong friendships with the other Webelos crossing over. my oldest now has life long friends and they quickly learned skills, leadership and how to help others. My second son has good friends but it's just not the same. Another reason that I do like age-based patrols. The older scouts tend to get chosen for SPL, TG, ASSPL, etc. Older patrols seem to survive better with members who pop in and out because of PORs. Younger scouts need to stick together more. Tampa though your points are still well taken.