fred8033

Eagle1973 wrote: "This Scout may have to come back and "finish" his SM Conference." That just creeps me out. Taking an appropriate BOR response to an incomplete advancement requirement and applying it at a SMC to hold up the scout. SMCs happen. No pass fail. Once it happened, the scout has had his SMC and the SM is to help the scout get his BOR. There's no re-convene two weeks later after you've refreshed your skills. But it's your troop and you can pretty much do as you want. The only way I've seen scouts held up at SMC is when the SM reserves the "scout spirit" requirement for the SMC. But that's a whole different discussion. And even then, you sign off on the SMC because the scout had his SMC. ... Eagledad wrote: "I do feel that if scouts are intimidated by the SM conference or BOR, then that is not the right style." Great insight. Fully agree. ... Buffalo Skipper wrote: "The SMC is not a retest of skills (as stated by many here). The SMC is not a prep for the Board of Review. The SMC is not a lecture by the SM." So correct.

Beavah wrote: "Yah, I've never understood this claim. Are yeh really saying that by the time a boy comes up for rank advancement, the Scoutmaster doesn't know the scout?" I think you know better. It's one thing to know the scout, but another to have had an extended private conversation about scouting experiences and goals. I'm a CC and I focus on the adult side of the troop; redirecting the scouts to the SPL or SM. But I still know all the scouts, their personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. But I've had few private conversations. And even fewer have I had a heart-to-heart conversation about their life and scouting experience. I'm sure it's the same for our SM. SMC is not pass / fail. It's just a directed conversation. ... Rank advancement worksheets ... Falls right in-line with the ninth method of scouting. 1. Patrols 2. Ideals 3. Outdoor programs 4. Advancement 5. Adult interaction 6. Personal growth 7. Leadership development 8. Uniform 9. Inspirational paperwork

Pack - 80 - Just lost 10 Webelos 2 at the B&G Troop - 45 - Just received 15 Webelos. Had two bad recruitment years.

I'll confess. Over the last ten years, I've handed them over periodically. Not that often. To recharter, you already have to visit with the CO executive. As such, we've already had a recent conversation. Probably the same conversation that happens each year. Starts with the church secretary ... "Who are you?" ... "Why do you need a signature?" Followed by a "Huh?" The charter paper comes a few months later. We've already had the conversation. Time in front of the congregation is pretty limited. The other CO is a PTO and we don't really want to raise visibility too much as it could easily push someone's button causing a much bigger headache. ... Probably the one thing that should change is see if the CO wants to have a frame somewhere to display the charter. We could put the new one in each year.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: - "I think what evilleramsfan and his fellow scouters are tryin' to say is that the boy in question really hasn't done this, at least in terms of learning and meeting BSA advancement expectations. Fair enough. I read evilleramsfan posts very differently. I saw where evilleramsfan wrote:" "This boy was one of the ones who got a bunch of items signed off because he went to two different summer camps. As a result, most of his First class was signed off and just needed time to happen. He did not earn First Class, but received it anyway." But it really didn't connect with me in where he did not earn First Class. I was reading that the scout had reasonable knowledge on the topics the SM questioned him on and the scout was very involved. I interpretted that others in the troop were grumbling at how fast the scout advanced. Almost like complaining that such a young scout had an unfair advantage by getting two weeks of summer camp and was able to shoot past his similar aged scouts. ... evilleramsfan - This might be moot now. But when you wrote "He did not earn First Class", what did you mean? Did he not pass a swimmers test (or equivalent with doctor's permission etc and BSA waver)? Did he not identify 10 different plants? Did he not help plan a patrol menu? Did he not do the map and compass requirement? How did the scout fail to meet the requirements?

Eagle732 wrote: "I just try to balance the overall numbers of the patrols. I ask the new guys which patrol they want to be in and try to work it out so everyone is as happy as possible. I think it's important to let them have some say in where they go." Cool. Very similar to our troop. We do initially put scouts in new scout patrols. They elect a patrol leader at the 1st meeting. Troop Guide helps them with the 1st meeting, 1st PLC, 1st camp out, etc. The Troop Guide knows to slowly wean the new scouts of needing his advice. But if they want, they can join another patrol. Or switch to another patrol at any time. Usually, functioning patrols want to stay together. That's 100% fine ... in my book. Your experience may vary.

RememberSchiff wrote: "Give the units with an absentee COR the right to select another representative to attend and vote at district and council meetings. " Great answer. When the local councils merged, the COs were given the vote. They had no clue. It was a laugh at the district round table with scouters rolling their eyes. ............ I like the current model of BSA providing the concepts, rules and materials for a program to be owned and run by the CO. BUT changes are needed to address key weaknesses. I'm not sure what solution is, but the problems are recurrant and based on absentee or barely involved COs. In my experience, the vast majority of COs are absentee or just barely involved. I really doubt many church elders or pastors regularly monitor, guide or correct their owned units. Sooo.... ..... #1 Legal or practical ownership? It's a grey situation at best. Who's responsible? Who's liable? Is CO unit ownership just a BSA liability shield? If so, it seems like a weak one. BSA has 99% of the contact by "owning" the camps, the training, and the program materials; and, registering the leaders. BSA (thru the councils and districts) runs all the activities (district derbies, university of scouting, council level youth training, etc.) I bet most COs (pastors, church elders) wouldn't know the name or recognize the cubmaster or scoutmaster when he(she) walks in the door. Most COs just sign the charter every year. That's about it. ... AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ... BUT ... the absentee CO is to approve the unit leader character and knowledge? And to monitor and "own" the unit? If BSA contracts with the CO and BSA knows the COs are usually not doing much on their side, it seems like BSA has a big liability. The problem is that an absentee CO is the normal condition. IMHO (not a legal scholar) when it's accepted knowledge that the majority of COs are not that involved (i.e. not screening volunteers, training or monitoring quality), then it seems BSA doesn't have that strong legal coverage when problems happen. ..... #2 Fixing problem units? With time, leaders change. Especially in Cub Scout packs. When units get off course, get poor leadership or no leadership, who fixes it? District execs can coach, but they have no power. COs are mostly absent and have no concept of what the problems are. The result is that to fix broken units, the units often need to first crash and burn. Or worse ... the units keep going as they are for years not delivering the scouting promise and damaging everyone's perception of what scouting is about. ..... #3 Conflicting youth program concepts? ... Except LDS ... Scouting groups are often viewed as an "outside group" that the church is providing a service too by letting them use church space. It's common that "internal" church youth groups don't even get involved with their church's scouting unit. And vice versa. BUT ... the church youth groups are tightly coupled to the church (monitored, supported, overseen, fixed, guided, ...). The scouting unit is the "outside" group.

shortridge wrote: "By emphasizing advancement and quality control and making that your priority, you're implicitly telling Scouts that they need to focus on checking the boxes and reading the rules. That's a skewed focus. "The emphasis should be on program and outdoor adventure, not advancement policies and procedures. Advancement will happen naturally in a troop that has a good outdoor program, almost accidentally. There's no need to worry about retention of skills, because the Scouts are using them every month. "It is harder to do, especially in a troop with lots of aggressive parents. But it is the way Scouting was intended to be done." 100% agree. Great response. In another thread, it was asserted that some troops are "kid focused" and others are "program focused". I've yet to reach a position on that. Perhaps because it wasn't a strong deliniation in my mind. BUT, this one is. Program focused versus advancement focused? Scouting is program based. It's about doing. Getting outdoors. Learning. Exploring. Building friendships. The scout in question apparently has done this, has been a good member of the troop and has met BSA advancement expectations. Why even talk about testing the lower limits? Why even talk about advancement quality control? To me that's just misfocused and needs an attitude adjustment. IMHO, the real question is how to celebrate this scout's achievement before he moves out of town. ... If you have any quality control question, perhaps the question is how do you make sure it's the scout's scouting experience and not the parents. It's hard to save a scout from his own parents and especially a scout with such a disability. In our troop, we've got two with significant autism, one with muscular dystrophy and several others with more mild conditions. Often, the parents are there just to help out. But we've also had pushy parents. Usually after listening to the parent talk / vent, the answer is a friendly smile and a "have your son come talk to me." Often we don't even discuss advancement with the parents. Explain yes. Discuss no. ... "too fast too soon" is as often an adult leader issue as much as a scout issue.

For the last eight years, we've been pretty consistent Weekend - tent camping - 8 or 9 (Mar - Nov) Weekend - cave camping - 1 (Dec - Feb) Weekend - cabin camping - 2 (Dec - Feb) Weekend - outdoor winter camping - 1 or 2 (Dec - Feb) Week long summer camp - Tents - 1 Extended adventure - Tents - High - 1 or 2 (Jun - Aug) Extended adventure - Tents - Moderate - 1 or 2 (Jun - Aug) If you did every overnight activity with the troop, you'd have around 35 to 38 nights. No one does it all, but a good percent of the troop has 30+ nights yearly.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah ... Mellow out. All the kids know him. He's an active parent in the troop and effectively a committee member. He has helped our events and we've helped his sheriff's department events (forming snow blocks, etc). In the last eight years, we've only had one scout who we've asked to be visit with the troop committee because of behavior. We had talked with the parents before and they understood why and we worked out how to handle the situation. Visiting the troop committee was almost a formality to impress the seriousness of what was happening.

raisinemright wrote: "I had a little incident with a municipal youth group I used to help lead. We caught a kid with some pot, disposed of it and set up a meeting with his parents with the intention of letting them handle the punishment, besides being kicked out of the club. The other leader was a cop but the kid didn't know it. He showed up to the meeting in uniform. Seeing the kid's look of utter fear, I had a hard time keeping s straight face." That's an absolutely great story. We have an active parent who's a deputy sheriff. He helps our troop and our troop helps some of his police community activities. You can sure as bet we'll be doing that too if anything significant ever happened. He doesn't need to say or do anything. Maybe a friendly word of advice. But having him there in full uniform would say plenty.

Beavah wrote: "Yah, but in the end, what did the boys learn from that? Maybe somethin' about the fickleness or fears of adults, but certainly nuthin' about managing safety, exercising judgment themselves and all the rest." We never said no. We just said they should make sure they had adults to go with them and to find a few to commit early. They asked a few but could not find any willing to commit. It's a brutally tough hike with all your gear in good weather. But Feb can be -20F and I'm sure snow can drift above your head on the trail. Controlling a sled would be really hard. Plus, you might think your on the path and .... .... Beavah wrote: "Any way yeh cut it, just dumpin' it on 'em at Eagle isn't really fair. Da Eagle Project process in a troop should be functionally the same as the outing process." dumpin' it on 'em is a loaded mischaracterization. But I don't buy the 2nd part that "eagle project process ina troop should be functioning the same as the outing process." I just don't see that supported in any BSA materials. Doesn't say anything about eagle projects being part of troop meetings, PLC discussion or supported by troop committees. And nothing allowing troops to require eagle candidates to follow established troop policies and procedures. BSA does document that scouts are to be given latitude to strick out on their own and take responsibility for their project. For our troop, our scouts get plenty of experience coordinating, making decisions, taking responsibility, coordinating resources and following thru. Plenty of experience to succeed at their Eagle project. It's a solid program and don't forget the MB experiences too: Personal mgmt, Communications, etc. .... I will say that I'm intrigued by this discussion and the many ideas it has raised. I'm not sure what will happen, but I'm sure multiple points from the discussion will influence our troop.

Just reading more what BSA says about scoutmaster approval. GTA does say scouts can have any number of partials, use multiple MBC per badge, no time limit, etc. BUT with approval ... ???? GTA IS CLEAR AS MUD GTA section 7.0.0.2 ... It tries to be explicit with statements such as "Although it is the Scoutmasters responsibility, for example, to see that a counselor is identified from those approved and made available, the Scout may have one in mind with whom he would like to work. He may also want to take advantage of opportunities at merit badge fairs or midways, or at rock-climbing gyms or whitewater rafting trips that provide merit badge instruction. This is acceptable, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate." "This is acceptable" seems to say the scout is allowed to use any counselor he wants. But then it says "but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve ...." So if it's acceptable, why the "but" and talking about still considering the recommendation. Maybe it's a typo and the scout should still consider the scoutmasters recommendation as the SM did the recommending and the scout the requesting. Or, it's the SM who is to allow the scout's choice if valid. I just have no idea. that paragraph is clear as mud. It's almost like it was written by committee and the committee had no conclusive agreement on the answer. ... BSA does address it in other ways too GTA page 76 Clause 12 Examination in camps ... seems to give leeway to camps to establish other standards "to give an intensive scouting program" ... not 100% unit leader signature but related but seems to open the door. ... GTA page 76 Section 1 Responsibility for Merit Badges, clause 13 ... says the the responsibility lies with the merit badge counselor and DAC. Doesn't really say what the responsibility is, but says it's the MB counselors or DACs. ********************** ********************** GTA 7.0.4.6 "Once a registered and approved counselor has passed a Scout on requirements for a merit badge, it cannot be taken away." - ONLY CLEAR STATEMENT ON THE TOPIC - So if a process was violated but the MBC approved the badge, this seems to say it's a done deal. You can't take it away just because the SM did not sign the card. ********************** **********************

Oak Tree: "I disagree, though, that the Jamboree Scoutmaster is equivalent to the actual unit leader." Unofficially - Agreed - NOT EQUIVALENT because the Jamboree leader doesn't know the multi-year history of the scout. But is that really needed to sign a blue card? Official per BSA - EQUIVALENT. I looked a few years ago and ... if I remember right ... Jamboree scouts are dually registered in his home unit and his Jamboree unit. So while participating in Jamboree related events, the jamboree SM is the real unit leader. Same with some scout camps where staff members get dually registered as "crew" members. Hopefully, unit leaders can work together in those situations. ... Trek leaders and camp staff leaders are not "officially" allowed to approve, but why sweat it? The trek leader is the one responsible for that scout at that time and will be on-hand to deal with flu, broken bones, dehydration ... and emergency blue card signatures. In your case, the camp director / ranger had responsibility for the scout. Yeah it's different in that it's employment. But the youth still is housed and fed there. I do view that as accepting some responsibility for the youth for months at a time. Often they get to know the scout better than the home unit leaders. ... I have seen where the signature is important. 2nd year Webelos were done with the Webelos program and wanted to start working on MBs when visiting the troop. Their future scoutmaster was able to catch it and explain the situation. ... Eagle732 wrote: "Well if a boy is going to be halfway across the country he should know before he leaves what MBs he'll be working on ..." Really? We've camped at state parks and met up with other troops working on MB. If invited, should our scouts turn down a chance to work on a MB just because our scoutmaster isn't there and we can't reach him on the phone? ... Eagle732 wrote: "Seems there's lots of differing opinions. " That's because we're dealing with registered scouters who didn't follow the BSA procedure. Most procedures focus on the planned "GO" path. It's hard to document how to handle every screw up. Though this is a pretty common MB screw up. Strictly speaking, the counselor should have told the scout to first get his SM approval and signature. That's the documented process. Until then, he doesn't know if he's teaching a qualified (registered boy scout) scout. He and the youth could be wasting their time was the youth might not be registered or might be a cub scout or girl scout. BUT ... I've never seen a MB counselor wait for the unit leader signature. At summer camp, scouts routinely sit through MB sessions and the counselor says at the end ... "Don't forget to bring me a blue card tomorrow." or even just gives the scout a new blue card and ignores the signature part. That's pretty common. IMHO the BSA rule to apply is where BSA says that we are not to penalize the scout for leader mistakes and in other places to not be overly legalistic with advancement. (new eagle process GTA documentation for example.) So the camp director said the cards are signed by registered MB counselors. So either the camp director and/or counselors need better training. OR they view this as a legalistic thorn that they don't want to deal with in a summer camp setting and until you can make them "care" your going to deal with a screw up that BSA doesn't address.

water temperature > 32F. Appropriate gear. Some of the best camp outs have been on the river on 45 degree days.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I read too quickly. Eagle92 raised good point. My comments are removed.(This message has been edited by fred8033)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Event #1, #2 and #3 and hitting in #4 hitting are all very bad. Tooth paste does not fix sheet rock. #3 is what scares the #### out of me. Several of our camps have river ice and others have lakes with flowages. It can be very dangerous. ... If he's a life scout and 17 years old, there must have been earlier behavior problems. Things rarely get this bad during just one camp out. SO ... what's been done to correct him in the past? Sometimes it's little feedback moments are critical. Sometimes a "come to Jesus" moment is needed. In another words, has the scout ever been explicitly to his face been told the expected behavior. That his behavior is not within those limits. (Specific incidents). If he can work within scouting boundaries, you are glad to have him in the troop. If not, he should look elsewhere to find a place to spend his time. We had a youth who really needed scouting because of the ugliness in his family life. But, he could not work within the scouting boundaries. We tried for too long to make it work and longer than he was willing to invest. It drove scouts away and damaged the troop. We waited too long to make the final "come to Jesus" moment. And then he left the troop. I've seen him for a few years after, I think he learned from being asked to step away until his behavior changed. ............... I would 100% separate his age and Eagle rank progress from the decision. That's his issue and a result of his behavior. ............... IMHO, those scouts affected by his behavior need to know they will be safe and all the scouts need to know the behavior is not acceptable. ............... I hate cabin camping for this reason too. ............... Flip side of all this is that we had an older scout hit a younger scout around seven years ago. Just wacked him. Heard later from the adult leaders that the older scout was just trying to sit quietly by the fire by himself. The younger scout would just not leave him alone. The adults were watching most of the afternoon and the feedback was ... yes it was 100% unacceptable, but they could not blame the older scout. The younger scout later became SPL and an eagle scout. Funny how things can sometimes work out.

qwazse - What do you mean when you wrote "Plus, the boys have a responsibility to tend to 11-13 year olds, whereas in the crew any such obligation is voluntary." ??? I don't see any difference in troop / crew here. If anything, crews have more responsibility for member to member training. ........... This discussion has really opened my eyes to think about changes we could make. Or better ... to have the SM discuss with the SPL and then have the SPL work with the PLC to see what they want to change. I can't see going as far as having scouts reserve camp sites, but there is much we could change.

IM_Kathy wrote: "I think there is a difference between boy-led and boy-done. To me boy-led means they plan: they decide what they want to do at a campout, where they want to camp to be able to do that, how long they want to stay there. It means they lead: they lead the younger scouts in all the "how to's" of scouting... knots, tents, packing, hiking, reading maps. It means they work together: John wants to canoe, Pete wants to bike, Luke wants to just chill... they agree to have a campout for canoeing, a different one for biking, and either make sure their is chill time at these as well or they plan another campout that is just a chill out campout. our last campout was a chill/rank campout. Some of the boys chilled out and played games - some worked on rank advancement but also chilled out." That pretty much reflects our troop. Boys led - planning and leading activities, camp outs, etc. Boy-done - while at meetings / activities and where scouts can easily coordinate. adult-done - off meeting tasks critical to making sure events happen and to support the troop. For example, adults receive permission forms and money directly from the scouts. It doesn't get handed to the PL, then to the SPL and then to the adult camping coordinator. Adults reserve the sites and pay the bills. Scouts deal with attendance lists during meetings and camp outs. Adults deal with them at other times. Same reason given by IM_Kathy. Scouts are busy and it's hard enough to depend on adults to get things done away from troop meetings. Scouts often have sporting, school, church or personal conflicts. ------------- We do have a PLC(SPL) report to the troop committee. It's a great chance for the adults to get to know what the scouts are thinking and will need in the coming events. The troop committee knows to not debate or hassle scouts during the report. We provide any critical feedback through the SM. The only schedule plan we ever had an issue with was a February camp out where the plan was to hike "DOWN" a mile long steep uneven rocky path to that would be covered with ice and snow. Oh... and the path has a sharp drop off (when you can see it ... not a sheer cliff, but still a sharp angle). We don't mind winter camp outs. That's fun. We just mind risking our lives. We were willing to schedule it if the scouts could find registered qualified leaders who would go with them. Oh and to get to the hiking trail, you have to drive on an un-marked, un-plowed raw dirt trail for two miles ... if you can find it. Not so cool. ------------- qwazse: - mentioned that you want to leverage boys talents. I like the term "progressive responsibility" to give scouts opportunity to grow with a good chance to succeed and to get out of their way when they already know what they are doing. ------------- Thanks everyone for your responses. I has given me much to think about. It's always amazing that "boy led" means something so different to everyone who hears the term. I'll have to look for a local troop that has patrol leaders managing attendance lists, budgets and where the scouts reserve sites, etc. It would be very interesting to learn more.

Oak Tree wrote: "I'll say these seem like pretty rhetorical questions, Fred. I suspect you know that most troops operate the way you describe - especially the larger ones. Are you trying to generate a ground-swell of opinion?" I'm not looking for a groundswell of opinion. I don't really care about being the nail that sticks up. And yes, parsing the original statement phrase by phrase is over the top. I'm just trying to see if I've missed something so key to the program. When someone so experienced says something so different than what I've seen, I do get confused. I'm just wondering if there are troops that do what was written. A good example is about five years ago I was at a Univ of Scouting session and the trainer had run NAYLE for a few years. He started making BOR recommendations to the class that directly conflicted with BSA documents. I was confused. I asked and he said he preferred how BSA had done it 30 years ago. I was not in BSA thirty years ago. I had never read it or seen it in practice. So it was confusing to me. SO is the above quote. It's so different than my experience. I am confused.

okay ... So I received a pretty negative reply by a very well respected scouter who suggested the problem with our troop is that we're not boy led. Personally, I hate that phrase as it's often used in a mean way. It communicates a truism without any concrete details that everyone agrees on. AND, it almost always leads into a put down of another troop. Spoken - "Join us because we're boy led." Unspoken - "Don't join them because they don't really understand the program." Enough on that though. Here's the quote. "The problem, though, is with the adult-run nature of da rest of the program. Why would the troop treasurer produce financial statements for any outing? Didn't the boys budget it and manage the expenses? Why in the world is the committee dealin' with signup sheets or tracking attendees? That's the responsibility of the Patrol Leader. Why in the world would the committee be approvin' the dates and locations selected by the PLC? And good heavens, why are they making reservations and reviewing what should be done each day?" So this draws out a few specifics that I'm really interested in. Our troop tries to follow the Scoutmaster handbook, Troop committee guidebook, GTA, G2SS and other official BSA documents as our guide. Or as others say our "true north". If there's debate, we use both common sense and these documents to find the answer. But the above quote reflects a venturing concept more than Boy Scouting. When I look at youth leadership roles from the scoutmaster handbook or troop committee guidebook, it doesn't match. Of the three troops I've seen in detail and the five or six that I chat with, I've never seen the scouts doing detailed financial management, reserving facilities or even collecting sign up forms / health forms. So I'd like to ask... ... .... FOR BOY SCOUTS .... NOT VENTURING .... .... Standard operating procedure type of replies please ... "for every camp out" ... not special oh we did that on a camp out two years ago answers ... MONEY QUESTION - Do your scouts create a budget for each camp out? QUESTION - Do your scouts manage the camp out budget on an on-going basis? ... beyond knowing how much they can spend on food per person and managing it while shopping and filling out an expense report QUESTION - Do your scouts research and cost out buildings and other price points? QUESTION - Do your scouts produce financial summaries for camp outs? QUESTION - Does your adult troop treasurer NOT produce financial reports for events? And if not, should they be doing it? ... ATTENDANCE QUESTION - Do your patrol leaders manage event sign up sheets? QUESTION - Do your patrol leaders record attendance info? ... Not including the troop scribe taking attendance at troop meetings and patrol leaders organizing scouts forming patrol lines at different times and reporting their attendance while in those lines. QUESTION - Does your adult troop advancement chair NOT track attendance in troopmaster or similar? QUESTION - Does your an adult leader in your troop NOT track who's signed up for camp? QUESTION - Does your troop NOT have an adult generated sign-up list used by the scoutmaster to know who should be there when leaving for camp? ... CALENDAR, RESERVATIONS and ACTIVITIES QUESTION - Does your troop committee NOT approve dates and locations chosen by the PLC? QUESTION - Do your scouts make facility reservations? QUESTION - Does your troop committee (or at least the scoutmaster) NOT review and approve the major activities the scouts plan to do? QUESTION - Does your troop committee NOT provide feedback to the scoutmaster after SPL give the PLC report?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know I'd give the scout the benefit of the doubt here. #1 Working camp is more like volunteer service than a high paying job. Usually, the scouts earn much less than minimum wage. Plus, there is often plenty of down time and/or waiting time. A driven scout could easily get done several merit badges a week. I know when my son became camp staff, he also got registered in that camp's crew with the camp ranger as the crew adviser. #2 The reason for the SM signature on the blue card is #1 to make sure the scout has a qualified instructor and #2 to know what's going on with the scout. Okay, so ya didn't get the opportunity to get grow in knowledge about the scout. It's an opportunity lost. Water over the dam. Now what? Per what you wrote, the camp director said he took the MB from registered MB instructors and received their signature. --- Option - When he gets the badges, he has a good story to share and can motivate other scouts to earn MB and work as camp staff. --- Option - If he somehow doesn't get them, his hard work will be thrown away and it's a lesson in why even try. #3 For Jamboree, they sent a letter announcing which merit badges the scouts had earned. There wasn't really a question of accepting them or not. Plus, his Jamboree SM was his SM for that time. It wasn't really a pretend situation. Essentially, the scouts had their long term SM and their Jamboree SM. There was no difference for advancement. Though it is hard to be active in a jamboree troop for four or six months. Maybe serve in a POR for four or six months... .... dg98adams ... Agreed with what he wrote. The camp ranger / director can be viewed as the provisional leader of the scout. And the scout was essentially in a six week merit badge midway. I know at my son's camp, the camp director AND camp range would have chewed their ##### off if they were slacking off chasing merit badges. If the camp director supports the scout, I'm impressed with the scout. He's motivated and driven. I'd be much more impressed with his MBs than those from say a MB Saturday event. .... My recommendation ... #1 congratulate him and #2 ask him to call you the next time, out of courtesy. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Twocubdad wrote: "Honestly, Fred, you're grossly over thinking this. There has never been a BSA policy intended to withstand this level of parsing. But if you insist...." It's interesting that I'm over thinking it when I'm just advocating for the simplicity of the process as BSA wrote it. I think BSA did a great job. But adult scouters as always will look for cracks in the process that they can manipulate to inject themselves into the scout's project. The real sad part is that most scouts won't know better and will then later repeat the mistake when they grow up and mentor other scouts. The workbook paragraph was written because previously scouters were interpreting that G2SS did not apply to eagle projects with the reasoning that they were not part of the unit programs. And thus, two deep and other issues were not necessarily followed. I'm pretty sure of my interpretation and the "AND" says how to interpret the statement of it being part of the unit program. If it's "part of the unit program" per your interpretation, then it will be interesting to see the updated scoutmaster handbook, committee guide book and other documentation that reflects how to integrate eagle projects into the monthly PLCs and adult committee meetings. That's where the unit program is coordinated. So I'm sure by your interpretation it would need to be addressed in those. But we won't see that as it's not really part of the unit program. It's only part of the program so as to know how to apply the risk management issues. ... If I'm over thinking it it's because I get mad for the scouts that deal with adult leaders that will use the "AND" as an authorization to hold their projects hostage just as projects were previously held hostage to over reaching DAC expectations. "I won't sign the tour plan or fundraiser proposal until I see and review the final plan". It's the whole reason BSA added pages 20 and 21 to the workbook with such great quotes as "Councils, districts, units, and individuals may not add requirements or ask you to do anything that runs contrary to or exceeds the policies, procedures, or requirements of the Boy Scouts of America. ... ... ... Though it is a Scouts option ... ... ... but coaches shall not have the authority to dictate changes, withdraw approval, or take any other such directive action."

Twocubdad wrote: "... but on the other hand now makes Eagle project work sessions official troop activities." They are official troop activities from the view of risk management and interpretation of policies and procedures. The eagle workbook says "Risk Management and Eagle Scout Service Projects All Eagle Scout service projects constitute official Scouting activity and thus are subject to Boy Scouts of America policies and procedures. Projects are considered part of a units program and are treated as such with regard to policies, procedures, and requirements regarding Youth Protection, two-deep leadership, etc. The health and safety of those working on Eagle projects must be integrated with project execution. As with any Scouting activity, the Guide to Safe Scouting applies. The Sweet 16 of BSA Safety must also be consulted as an appropriate planning tool. " It's called out to intepret how to apply policies and procedures. There is NOTHING written anywhere that I've seen that integrates eagle projects into the unit programs.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah ... Just because eagle projects need to be G2SS compliant that doesn't mean the youth needs to take youth protection or read the whole G2SS. That's a world record jump to conclusion. Simple coaching by the DAC or by his eagle coach or unit leader should be fine. A little assistance filling out documents is fine too. It should be as easy as at the DAC proposal sign off, the DAC rep can simply remind the scout that holding events requires either needs two registered leaders or one registered and one parent of an attending scout. Same with power tools ... "When you plan, remember that only adults are allowed to use power tools. Or if you can, find a way to avoid using them." Beavah wrote: "Yeh run it just like yeh run a regular troop or patrol outing. That's where I hugely disagree. First though, I assume when you wrote "yeh run it" you are refering to the scout running it. As we both know the eagle scout candidate runs his own project. And it would be very wrong for adults, troops or patrols to run eagle projects. It's hugely different because it's not a troop or patrol outing or activity. Eagle projects are individual advancement. Some projects may have portions that reflect "outings", but not necessarily. Once you make it a troop or patrol outing, it opens a pandora box of other topics. Is the troop treasurer to produce financial statements for the Eagle project? Review and approve budgets? Is the committee to have signup sheets and track attendees? Is the committee to approve work dates and locations? Reserve the sites? Review what's to be done each day? Then there's the next natural step that DOES HAPPEN ALREADY. Committees that start asking "Who's our next eagle?" Committees throttle and control who does eagle projects when. "Oh, we've already got three Eagle projects under way and we're now planning summer camp. You need to wait until the fall to start your eagle project." ... The Eagle workbook has three approvals (signatures). Project proposal. Fundraising proposal. Final Report. In between, BSA tells the scout he has responsibility to run his project and latitude to make decisions. Troops doing anything else moves the "Final Plan" from a document useful to the scout to organize his planning to a required document that gets distributed all around and reviewed / approved by everyone at every step of the process. I absolutely cringe and thank heaven for our troop and our scoutmaster when I hear things such as I wont sign a fundraising proposal or tour plan until I review the project final plan. That is just adults gaming the system to keep control and to circumvent BSA concepts, processes and procedures. Ya gotta stop hovering. Let go. Let the scout take responsibility. ... For me it's a big issue because in our troop for years and years ... eagle projects are separate activities. Usually by the time an Eagle candidate is ready for his project, he and his fellow scouts have run things for years in the troop for years. Now the eagle candidate should be allowed to run it on his own. Especially as it's his individual advancement. Similar to merit badges. Troop committee doesn't discuss who's working on what merit badge when ... or manage events ... or track merit badge attendees. In the same way, the troop doesn't manage the execution of eagle projects. ... After a few years of drought, we've had five eagle scouts in the last two years. And I've been at every committee and planning meetings. We don't coordinate Eagle projects. We rarely if ever even chat about eagle project progress. And I've known the scoutmaster for years. He doesn't get involved after the initial signature ... unless asked. I asked him once about his not tracking eagle projects and I still remember his puzzeled response. "Why would I?"