fred8033

Here is where I need to better understand how this will work.... From my understanding, the scout is responsible for his project. He would need to secure the tour plan. He'd fill it out and approach his leaders for signatures and then get it submitted to the scout office. It's his project. It would be the job of the unit leader and the DAC when they review and approve the proposal to say to the scout "Remember to secure a tour plan. If you need help with the paperwork, talk to your unit leaders. They can help." The unit leader and DAC would probably also need to say "Remember to follow the G2SS rules for youth protection, etc. Your unit leaders can advise you through this also." .... IMHO, the DAC approver needs to have a script to go through when approving proposals. - G2SS ----- youth protection ----- power tools - tour plan - STRONGLY RECOMMEND the scout to complete the final plan - log all time. my time. your time. parents time. driving time. planning time. reporting time. etc. - keep receipts - keep donation log - avoid doing all the work yourself - demonstrate leadership - Maybe have a section for special cautionary warnings given the scout.

Eagle92 - Of the EBORs I've been on, it's almost always asked (not by me) ... "what if we told you that you haven't earned Eagle?" It's a very standard question. I hope that's all that happened to you. If you got stuck between old and new DACs with different visions, that was bad. ... AvidSM - GTA 9.0.2.13 is part of beneficiary or unit leader not approving it. But it hints at the EBOR also having discretion. GTA section 9.0.2.7 explicitly says the EBOR has discretion. It's to be rare. The EBOR is to focus first on the benefit of the project and then on the leadership and planning. But I really like how the GTA is written ... "virtually impossible to forecast every contingency, candidates must be allowed a level of flexibility ... the Scout should consult his project coach or unit leader for advice. ... cautionary advice is in order ... If the young man decides to strike out on his own, this is his prerogative. At some point, responsibility must take over. The board of review decides whether planning was sufficient and if the requirement was met." It's only dealing with problem cases and they do occur. This section gives the scout the ability to take responsibility. It advises scouters to warn youth. It gives the EBOR authority to challenge problem projects. I think this is generally good. It gives EBOR ground to stand on if they ever need to reject a project or to say no.

Twocubdad: - I think the reason the GTA says in "8.0.0.2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met"... "Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to defer him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one." ... is that troops were going so overboard with forms, checklists, processes and procedural diagrams. It's one thing to ask the scout to put his name in a notebook to ask for a BOR ... or to ask him to walk accross a room to request a BOR. It's very much another to send him home to print out a BOR request form from the troop web site, fill it out, submit it at the next meeting to schedule the BOR and then wait for yet another meeting to get the BOR done. IMHO, SMC and BOR is to be a simple way to see how things are going with the scout, with his scouting experiences and with the troop. Adding beaurocracy onto of that defeats the purpose. Adding hoops to teach the scout a lesson is also defeatist. It's obvious at the end of a SMC that the scout needs a BOR. Why not follow the GTA and make it happen? IMHO, the perfect solution is the scoutmaster, at the end of a SMC, walks the scout over to the advancement chair and says "this fine young man needs a BOR." I'm even okay with (though technically adding requirements) the scoutmaster telling the scout to walk over to the advancement chair and ask for a BOR. Or even to have the scout write his name in the book to be the next in line for a BOR. ... BORs are like quality control on a manufacturing line. Manufacturing quality control processes need to not affect throughput, to not inject defects and to not mask real defects. That's why SMC / BORs need to be kept simple and easy. BOR processes to make BORs fair, orderly and to minimize impact on the troop and volunteers, ... fine. BOR processes making the scout jump additional hoops or to teach additional lessons, ... not fine.

Eagle732... What's this pre project final write up with signatures? It is not in the bsa eagle workbook.

Beavah ... Good points. Well taken. And no, I've never seen the national camp standards book. I've got several for shooting sports and they are very detailed with plenty of rules. And I have been through many years of Sundays with health form inspection, camp drills, 100 page camp manuals, and such. So point taken. Perhaps it's just the weekend camps where the camp ranger tells the scouts to use the Scout Oath and Law as their guide. ... Agreed that some procedure stuff is needed. In our troop that would be things such as permission form needs to be in by the last troop meeting before the camp out. To get reimbursed, you have to fill out the reimbursement form. ... Beavah wrote: "And we have to be wary of the tendency of thinkin' that just because we wouldn't do things that way that it's necessarily a bad thing for other people in other situations to do." Your right in that some groups can make such examples work very well. BUT ... what do we represent as the scouting program: What do we teach as best practices? Example: There's a local troop that has 17+ forms for one camp out. And they teach the scouts when to apply each form and who uses each form. AND IT WORKS. They are an outstanding scouting unit. The leaders are outstanding mentors, great examples and good people. BUT ... IMHO ... from my experiences ... from what I've read ... that's not scouting. They make it work, but I don't think that's an example we should promote.

I think there's a confusion between the past and the present. The approval is for a proposal and not the final plan. Whereas the old Eagle process required pretty much everything be known before project approval, now only the proposal is approved. Much can change during the final planning and execution. The project itself might turn out to be much easier than thought. The new GTA says in 9.0.2.13 Evaluating the project after completion "One or the other may determine modifications were so material that the extent of service, or the impact of the project, were insufficient to warrant approval. The candidate may be requested to do more work or even start over with another project." An eagle project proposal might have looked great during initial approval. If somehow through learning or thru the method of doing the work, the project got much easier or the benefit to the non-profit became less, the EBOR has the right to reject the project. I'm not saying that's good. But it can happen. And probably more so now that proposals are approved instead of final plans being approved. Another GTA relevant section is 9.0.2.7 Proposal must be approved ... before you start "Because it is virtually impossible to forecast every contingency, candidates must be allowed a level of flexibility in carrying out proposals and planning action steps. But essential elements of a proposal should not be changed without good reason. If this must occur, the Scout should consult his project coach or unit leader for advice. It is appropriate to strongly suggest he share substantive changes with the project beneficiary, and also with those involved in preapprovals. "If it appears changes will cause results to fall below what is required, then cautionary advice is in order. Except under extreme circumstances, it is not acceptable for unit, or council or district, approval to be withdrawn. If the young man decides to strike out on his own, this is his prerogative. At some point, responsibility must take over. The board of review decides whether planning was sufficient and if the requirement was met." .... So even though it should be very very rare, EBORs can reject projects for - Insufficient benefit to beneficiary - Insufficient demonstration of leadership - Insufficient planning .... Given my experiences with the past Eagle processes, I'm very thankful for the new GTA and the updated Eagle project workbook. With a few significant exceptions, I really like the new BSA publications. I'm just saying that an approved proposal with a successful project does NOT guarantee a successful EBOR. I probably does, but it's not a slam dunk.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: "Others like artjrk like the consistency and order of havin' a simple notebook procedure. I think that's a fine way of doing things, fair and keeps things organized. 100% okay with it. I bet the scoutmaster makes a good number of the entries in it himself. But, I don't view that so much as a troop process / procedure as much as the SM way of managing troop chaos. I'd be very okay with that. I'm pretty much even okay with saying "walk over to the CC and ask for a BOR" or write your name in that book to request a BOR. Yes adding requirements, but fairly innoquious and exists to simplify or organize thigns. I'm okay with simple steps to keep large troops organized. ... BUT, it's very different than what I often find on troop web sites, eagle adv committees, etc. Person after person establishes the next improved process. Scouts are expected to read their Boy Scout handbook, BSA advancement materials and then also the local custom stuff. If it gets rough, then a checklist is added. Or a process diagram. Or another form. Or a .... I'm fine with that for business, engineering and ISO type of environments. You must do it there. But this is scouts. We are trying to promote human interaction, adult mentorship and good character traits. ... The second is believing that others will always respond appropriately to that sort of interpersonal approach. Generally speakin' it only works when there's the sort of person Eagledad talks about - the long-time, well-respected person in the unit who is alpha-dog "keeper of the vision". The trouble then is that the new troop specific procedures become the long-time, well-respected procedure in the unit who is the alpha-dog "keeper of the vision". I'd much much rather have it be a person and not a procedure. ... I don't think we are that far apart. I'm just generally against advising that special troop procedures are even necessary. Buf if really needed or if all else fails, fine. But minimize them. artjrk has a good practice. I'm 100% fine with it. It promotes fairness and organization. BUT I've seen many other troop processes that I just smile at and quickly walk away from. Especially when justied with some reason similar to producing a better scout. ... There's plenty of examples out there. Google finds them quickly. - "Print Board of Review Request Form" ... "When item 1 above is complete, a Scout shall access the Troop website and print a 'Board of Review Request Form,'" ... "Complete this form prior to requesting a SMC and BOR." ... IMHO, the only "form" the scout needs to bring to a SMC is his Boy Scout Handbook. ... Also think about the timing... Complete the requirement (usually at a scouting event). Go home to print form and fill it out. (week delay). Bring it back to schedule review. (2nd week delay). SMC. Schedule a BOR. (3rd week delay). - "The Advancement Coordinator will fill out and sign a Request for Scoutmasters Conference and Board of Review form for you." - Pretty common practice. A little formal. - "When all requirements for a rank are completed (other than Scout Sprit, Scoutmaster Conference, and Board of Review) you must bring your Scout Handbook to the Advancement Chairman, who will review your handbook and give you an Advancement report authorizing a Scoutmaster Conference" ... huh? Need permission to talk to the scoutmaster? Really? Also, isn't the BOR to review the handbook to see things are completed? That's why BORs are there. - "Your Patrol Advisor will conduct your Scoutmasters Conference. Contact him 2-3 days in advance for an appointment. ... The Patrol Advisor is to complete the Personal Growth Agreement Worksheet" - The what ???? - STAR & LIFE - "Obtain a Pre-Service Project Checklist and a Service Project Report Format from the Scoutmaster. Complete checklist and have it approved by the Scoutmaster before you start work on your project." - For star and life ???? - "Complete a Scout Law paper...." - - "Scouts are required to use a "Leadership Card" to document that they have completed the necessary requirements of their position. These "Cards" are available from the Troop ## Leadership Coordinator and/or the Troop 10 web site: Leadership Position Web Page. .. TO RECEIVE CREDIT THESE "CARDS" MUST BE RETURNED TO THE LEADERSHIP COORDINATOR WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER A (6 month) LEADERSHIP PERIOD ENDS. NO PARTIAL CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN AFTER THE 60 DAY PERIOD." - "It is the policy of Troop ## to not accept or make changes to our attendance records after 60 days have passed from the date of the activity." - "When complete with all other requirements, (including leadership credit), the Scout should see the Advancement Chairperson to get a participation report that indicates his current involvement in the Troop (Scout Spirit Card)." - Many refer to filling out a form or other document and that SMCs/BORs will NOT happen at the same meeting when requested. It automatically builds one, two or three weeks delay or longer as scouts get the paperwork, fill it out, submit the request, wait to hear when it's scheduled for and then wait for the actual review. - "Troop ## does not allow a Scoutmasters Conference and the Board of Review to be held at the same Troop Meeting." ... I always find it interesting that most scout camps have the rules as the scout oath and law. A few big rules such as don't feed the bears, no flames in tents and don't walk on the frozen river. Otherwise, the whole camp runs under the oath and law. But for advancement, we need to document and control every nook and cranny.

Beavah wrote: "That's when puttin' in place formal processes and procedures helps. It helps folks learn and adjust and helps the group improve." I can agree with you but tend very strongly away from that fix. The reason is that the new folks start seeing processes and procedures as the normal Boy Scout way. They don't realize it's a troop decision to handle a transition or teach a lesson. As such, those new processes and procedures tend to be permanently installed. My experience is that it's very easy to add a process or procedure. BUT, it's very very difficult to eliminate as others will see the process / procedure as a safety blanket. Not to mention eliminating a process / procedure often takes updating documents and group consensus. At the slightest hickup, adult leaders will recall the process / procedure and add a bit more to it. A good example is a local troop that boasts proudly of their detailed BOR process diagrams and procedures. Yeah they really thought it out and yeah the scouts that survive really grow. But, it just lacks friendly, kind and thoughtful aspect that I associate with scouting. Instead of adding a formal process / procedure, I'd tend instead to discuss with the committee the need to focus on organization and getting things done. Though still trying to support BORs as requested, I'd remind them that it doesn't mean you need to jump and drop everything. Or be just waiting to do a BOR at any moment. There's creative ways to deal with group dynamics that avoid creating processes and procedures.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

From what I've read here, the issue is proposed projects that are inadequate for showing leadership and not the new eagle advancement process. Nothing has changed in the BSA expectations for the eagle rank. The changes have only been in the paperwork side to standardize and simplify processes that were never part of the published BSA requirements. From the above example of one cemetery sign or the lone scout, let the scout know that the EBOR can reject the whole project if it does not show sufficient leadership ... after-the-fact. Doesn't matter what is signed off at the proposal phase. If the project didn't demonstrate the candidate's leadership skills, the whole project can be rejected by the EBOR. A smart scout (and his family) should get the hint that wasting time on an inadequate project is too big a risk.

Beavah wrote: "Advancement is just one tool, and yeh have to use it in different ways. If yeh have a bunch of lads who feel like they're entitled to adult attention and time and that's showin' in their behavior, then I reckon the proper lesson is to teach them patience and courtesy." Agreed. But it's often a lesson that can be taught without establishing formal processes and procedures that penalizes everyone.

twocubdad wrote: "Is it really adding a requirement?" Unfortunately, yes. I can fully understand your position. And it might not be that big of an addition for how your troop would do it. BUT... it opens the door to scouters who want to make sure scouts "earn" their rank. Or that want to protect the integrity of their troop advancement. Or that view BSA advancement as too easy. Or that want to hold a higher standard for scouts. AND thus cost scouts advancement when they've already completed per the BSA requirements. I've seen a few such as... #1 Scouts need to fill out an advancement form that includes a statement of life goals and a history of PORs they've held. No form = no BOR. OR ... #2 Scouts need to go to the adult in charge of TroopMaster to get a print out of their advancement records. Review it and get it signed off. Then go to the person in charge of scheduling BORs. OR ... #3 Go to the SMC scheduling person and jump through the following 20 step SMC/BOR process. BORs are to supposed to be simple and easy with the goal to make sure everythings done (administrative really), to encourage advancement and to evaluate troop performance. ... Of everything written in this thread so far, my favorite is the example where the scout asks the SM for an SMC. When the SMC is done, the SM walks the scout over to the advancement committee person and says "this fine young man needs a BOR" and then it gets done or gets scheduled to be done. Nice and simple.

Feb - Blue and Gold - Cross the bridge to Boy scouts Mar - 1st troop meeting Mar - pinewood derby. 2nd year Webelos den and especially the leaders don't want to do yet another derby. Let 'em focus on becoming a boy scout.

Huh. Ya know I've seen that form for years. But we've never tracked who sat on the board. If we needed specific names, we'd go to the scout handbook and see the initials. Even back in the paper days, we would submit one form for multiple BORs that happened on different days with different committee members. No one ever looked up who the committee members were or cross referenced that sheet. We'd just find two committee members to sign it. And even then, so members would tell another "you have permission to sign my name" for that form. The form has always sort of been junky. There's the "Board of Review Date" box. AND, each line has a scout name and a date earned field. So which date is the BOR date. If the box, the report is really only good for one BOR date, but multiple scouts for MBs on different days and such. If the individual line for the BOR date, then why the big box. Doesn't make sense. I think that's why no one ever took those signatures too seriously. Online is much cleaner.

We've been submitting online advancements for a few years now. Works great! Records are accurate and not lost. Only need a printed report for shopping at the scout store. And I believe we can even feed the online report directly to the store to have the piece parts pulled and ready to purchase. Moving paperwork is a major cost, a major delay, a major headache and a major failure/error point. I think the only place where you need a physical signature is inside the unit. And then, just sign the scout handbook. I hope as much paperwork as possible moves online. I'd love to reduce my drives to the scout office. Expensive in gas and time. Expensive because I visit the scout shop at the same time. ============== Also, the advancement report never needed the BOR member signatures. Just the signatures of two committee members. As far as I'm concerned, that can just go away. Those signatures are never really used anyway. =============== If done right, I could see the registrar role going away. Submit online. Have the DE review and approve. Then be done with it.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Taserdoc quoted: "Emotional abuse occurs when a young person is continually berated and denigrated, severely jeopardizing his self esteem" SM handbook PG. 136." I'm one who does consider it emotional abuse. I've seen it. I hate it. The trouble is that unless its really really bad there's not much one can do about it. Also, I can imagine some parents not minding their sons getting a verbal whipping. They'd call our attitude coddling the scouts. BSA just can't do much. They don't see these leaders day after day. And, they've probably never heard the yelling or derogatory comments. Legally? It needs to get extremely bad before the law steps in. So it's really up to the charter organization to choose, screen and monitor the leaders. Charter Exec --> COR --> CC --> .... ... For berating, denigrating and self-esteem abuse, the only effective enforcer is the scout's parent and the other parents in the unit. If they see a leader that can't keep his cool, they need to step in and/or get their sons out of there. In scouting, I've seen scouters loose their cool and start yelling and berating scouts. It's not fun. I sort of view it as much job to step in at those times. And it happened to my son on his Jamboree trip. And I'm still livid about it. ... But what your described had multiple scoutmasters (different units). It's hard (not impossible, jamboree) to imagine it. And it's hard to imagine what the council can do about it. They'd probably need a repeated pattern established across troops with lots of visibility.

Beavah ... great article. Love The Atlantic. It's one of a few magazines I read. Right up there with Foreign Affairs and The Economist. Detailed, educational, and fairly balanced articles.

Ya know, I flip back on forth on what's "routine maintenance." Our local DAC says an aggressive interpretation of "routine maintenace" would eliminate most Eagle projects. Giving leadership - To decide what is or is not "routine maintenance", I'd try to decide from how the project can be used to demonstrate leadership. If it's routine maintenance, it's probably effectively scheduled, such as it gets painted every two to five years. It's probably a well known process with well known steps. It's been done enough times that volunteers can almost do it "automatically". There's probably a storage closet at the site with supplies from the last time it was done. But how can the scout show leadership? And thus decide if it's "routine maintenance"? - Making a difference Will the Eagle candidate drive the project? If he wasn't there, would the project happen anyway? Would the project result look the same? Would the project happen in the same way? - Influence Does the Eagle candidate's leadership role have any choices or options? Or is the project obvious and it just needs bodies to get it done. - Challenge Does the Eagle candidate need to learn OR teach anything to get the project done? Do people have to grow to get it done? - Coordination Does the Eagle candidate need to schedule the work? Coordinate the facility? Coordinate volunteers? Orchestrate the resources to get the job done? Or, is it pretty much laid out for him in advance. - Ownership Will the Eagle candidate have something he can look back on and take pride for making it happen? And it wouldn't have happened without him. - Perception Will non-scouters look at the result and think that the Eagle candidate made a difference in his community? Or was he another cog in the wheel that makes things happen for the community? So, I think painting may or may not be okay. - Probably okay - Painting that has not been done recently or routinely and that needs someone to make it happen. - Probably not okay - Painting a wooden boat to fight off salt water decay ... that happens every two or three years ... using the same paints as last year ... with supplies stored in a closet ... coordinating and handling the boat ... THE SAME AS THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED. .... and IF IN DOUBT, FAVOR THE SCOUT.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know... I'd put this on a higher priority level. Call him on it. Ask him to explain himself. Ask him not to text you. Depending on the level/type of threats, (passive/aggressive versus physical versus slanderous versus intimidation versus ...), I'd take action. I think it's similar to teaching our scouts to confront a bully. I'd also #1 document it and #2 coordinate with the parents. If the parents are not helpful, you won't get far. If he's not willing to change, suggest to the scout to take a break from scouting until his behavior is compatible with the boundaries of scouting (if that's the case). Similar to having a scout that swears all the time. At some point you just have to identify the behavior, indicate it's wrong, ask him to stop. If he won't, suggest that he finds somewhere else compatible with his values. But that he'll be welcome back when and if he can function within the boundaries of scouting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Taserdoc - Vague hypothetical questions get vague answers. Units leaders see a lot over the years. All scouts push limits. All. Some scouts get attitude and might push limits in a bad way such as blaming others for their failures or accusing scout leaders. It does happen. That's one reason for two deep leadership. So that one leader can stand up and defend another leader. So don't get offended when we ask about someone stirring the put. To be honest, some of the worst stir'ers are parents of scouts who think their scout was slighted. Best way to get a good answer is to give more specifics.

Hypothetically... - Were laws broken? - Was it hazing or emotional abuse or some other type of abuse? - Was it a safety violation? - Did the SMs set-up the situation or responding to a situation created by others? To be honest, specifics are needed.

The hypothetical question asks for a conclusion based only on outside actions without any specifics to analyze. - This could be a case of someone stirring the pot. - This could be a case of society changing but old time scouters not changing. - This could be a really significant or just noise or people with hurt feelings. In any event, this forum can't help without more details. Ask your own conscious. Do you believe it merits further action? If so, as a citizen, as a scouter and as probably a parent, you should pursue it with the appropriate authorities. The problem at Penn State was everyone passed the buck and no one wanted to be the person who escalated the situation. Penn State should have been a clear cut. Use your conscious about this one. But if you don't want to pursue it, just leave it be and don't complain that others didn't take action.

Just to give a voice of dissent. We form new scout patrols from the incoming scouts. Once they gain a few months of experience, we let them choose. Radical yes, but it works. If the scouts want to stay together, fine. If they don't, fine. We just want scouts to believe in their patrol and not disappear to find their friends all the time. My oldest son came into the troop with most of his cub scout den and received a few more scouts to become a patrol. They stayed together for seven years. Thru scouting, they became best of friends. Those guys served as SPL, TG, QM and just about every other position in the troop. And after their term of service, they always had their own patrol waiting for them. Personal opinion ... I don't care for dictating patrol membership or breaking up friendships to make sure each patrol has mixed ages or mixed experiences or .... Let the scouts choose. Plus, if there is a leadership void or skill void or ...., that's a great chance for one of the scouts to step up and grow. If they need help, there's always the TG or ASPL or SPL.

Engineer61 wrote: "I don't think it's "designed into the process" at all ... you can't have a BoR at the drop of a hat...if you don't have the people there to do it." Cool. I'm okay with it occurring naturally. "Sorry Timmy, we don't have three committee members free right now to do the BOR. How does next week work for you?" I'm even okay if troops hold BORs at a designated time/date (at least once a month and with a bit of sympathy/flexibility for the scout). Engineer61 wrote: "But I'll challenge the notion ... name those "multitude of poor lessons"." The following are the type of poor lessons that I think come from establishing rules such as "we don't do BORs the same night requested." - "People exist to serve processes" instead of "processes existing to serve people." - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes to box in options and teach a lesson instead of supporting those they are responsible for. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes that damage their followers if it's only a really small amount. (Small effects add up and can cost scouts future ranks / opportunities.) - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes to address a problem that may or may not exist. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes based on the worst view of those they lead. - It's okay for a leader to design rules/processes based on a "tough love" concept. (i.e. we gotta wipe this boys into shape.) I'm 100% okay with saying we do our BOR's once a month because it helps keep the meetings more structured or eliminates distractions during meetings or because we don't have enough committee members normally. I just don't like it when I hear things such as we don't do BOR's the same night because we want to teach scouts a lesson. I think it's cold heart'ed and I don't want to be associated with it. Our troop does BORs on request if the situation and the people allow.

Engineer61 wrote: "I, in fact think it imperative this not be the case... it's a bad lesson to teach that the world revolves around an individual. Most of our politicians have that view." Yeah, that's where we differ. IMHO, object lessons, such as people not being available to do a BOR, should be a natural situation and not structured into the process. Designing it into the process penalizes all scouts and teaches a multitude of poor lessons both for the scouts and the adult leaders.

GTA says ... "Section 8.0.0.2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met A Scout cannot be denied this opportunity. When he believes he has completed all the requirements, including a Scoutmaster conference, it is up to the unit leader and committee to assure a board of review is held. Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to defer him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one." In our troop, a scout asks the scoutmaster for a conference. Right before the SMC or right after the SMC, the scoutmaster will let the committee members present know that a scout needs a BOR. We then do our best to get it done the same night. Almost always, scout willing and scout's parents willing, we can get it done the same night. The BOR process (requesting and scheduling) is not a scout responsibility and definitely should NOT be used to teach the scout a lesson in responsibility and accountability. I should note that, in our troop, the scout handbook is the ultimate authority. Now and then we might borrow the scout handbooks from the scouts to double check TroopMaster. But even then, it's more of a double check as the list of MB completed is driven by advancement and council records. The camp attendance is from event records. We don't track individual rank requirements in TroopMaster such as "Served as cook ..." Ultimately, many troops find reasons to add steps to the process. Does BSA allow it? No. Should they? I don't know. I'm just following what BSA publishes. Is it really that big of a deal? I'll also leave that to your troop leaders and your scout parents to decide. For me, yes it is a big deal. I've seen a situations and attitudes that just make me cringe. As such, I'd rather let BSA documents set the rules. Buffalo Skipper: So cool. I was really happy when I read ... "Last summer, our Chaplain (committee member) was also at summer camp, so we had 4 Tenderfoot BoRs at summer camp. Immediate recognition was given to the scouts at flags the following morning. Two sewed on their patches before dinner that evening. Good summer camp." That's how it's suppose to work.(This message has been edited by fred8033)