fred8033

Twocubdad ... The examples you wrote could have been pulled directly from our troop. I know multiple over 18 year old excellent kids who gave up on advancement because of the horror stories getting Eagle projects approved. I know scouts who had their proposals bounced for ridiculous reasons. Now you can debate the emphasis on Eagle and the priorities and what not. But it should not take 3+ months to get a proposal approved. It should not take a 30+ page paper. I really like the new workbook because it gets the scouts away from the bureaucracy side and focus more on driving a service project for others and leading and taking responsibility for that service being done. IMHO, the workbook is dead on the mark. I also like the section that warns the parents about process changes and such. Really cool.

Good luck both of you. It will be an interesting year.

papadaddy wrote: "I could understand it if there was a decrease in professional staff (and salaries) ... "

Hmmm.... That raises a good question. Just curious. Not trying to incite something.

How many professionals are in your council? Our council has 80 professionals listed on the contact page. It does NOT include scout store staff, but does include nine camp rangers for seven camps.

Just curious.

WEB PRESENCE - For an online web presence... I partially agree with basement dweller. Custom web sites are obsolete and to be avoided. But critical features are lost if you go with a totally generic provider (i.e. Google or Facebook). Roster mgmt (patrol, parent/child association, rank, other advancement info). From roster, automatic mailing lists based on patrol and other info. Automatic newsletters. Security (parent level, leader, web admin). Most provide picture and file hosting. But there's still alot to be said for a site targeting scouting.

Our unit uses SOAR. Calendar integrates nicely with Google, Apple and Microsoft calendars. http://www.soarol.com

Another option is ScoutLander.com. They are okay but the SOAR has more very useful features.

ADVANCEMENT - As for tracking progress and other details, TroopMaster is showing it's age. we use it only because we have many scouts that have 6+ years of advancement history in it. It's a big commitment to switch to another tool and the tools are evolving quickly. We use ScoutTrack.com for cubs. It works great and it's new TroopTrack.com looks sharp. BUT ... do we want to put six years of data in it? Or are we content to stay with TroopMaster.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Quick correction. The applicable GTA sections are 9.0.1.5 and 8.0.3.0 (sub-point 8)

Mad Max: I was honest with my apologies. It's just one of my hot buttons. I always cringe anticipating the direction the point will go.

Your points are on target and it will be interesting to see how things shake out. We all suffer from "magical" thinking at times. If a scout can get an approved proposal, I can see them not wanting to invest in more paperwork. Depending on the scout and the project, it might be okay. A detail oriented, five year SPL wanting to pull buckthorn? Sure, will probably go okay. Any significant construction project? No.

The new process really escalates the importance of a good scoutmaster and good project coach that stay involved and watch what's going on. For our troop, that's okay. We'll gladly bite that bullet compared to the approval BS (not an abbreviation for Boy Scout) that was happening a few years ago.

But I do fear for scouts and beneficiaries if that final plan is not done or done well. It's not a matter of the EBOR or earning Eagle, it's whether their service project is something they will be proud of and also useful to the beneficiary ... or just an ugly situation for everyone.

Still though, I really like the new workbook and process. It seems like it lets the scout take ownership and responsibility for the results. I view the old jumping through hoops process to get an approval as trying to please someone and not necessarily as taking responsibility. I know plenty of scouts (and parents) who got approvals but spoke openly of their contempt for the process. That's not taking ownership or responsibility. That's just chasing a signature. And ya know the "scamming" scout and adults would probably have tried to scam the old system too.

Anyway ... good luck. These conversations will be going on for years to come.

Nice article ... except I wish it was a requirement that the chief scout always be photographed outside and in uniform. Hard to promote an outdoor program in a suit on a comfy executive leather chair. Google BP. He's always in his scout uniform if it's scout related. And almost always in uniform still when not scout related. LOL.

Mad Max wrote: "I also feel a huge responsibility to my fellow Eagle Scouts in keeping a high standard." You know that's exactly one of the statements that always makes me cringe and not want to be in scouts. Eagle is just a rank and not a better-than-thou club. It's one of my hot buttons along with comments about how the eagle rank should be special or rare or we are producing too many. Those may or may not be valid points when re-working the GTA or debating rank requirements. But I hope that's never part of the discussion when deciding how to treat our scouts.

I know that's probably not what you meant. And I can appreciate the sincere feelings. So my apologies. It's just that the statement always makes me think the person is approaching the subject with the wrong attitude. I really wish I'd never hear such quotes again. We're there to support the current scouts. We are NOT there to protect guys who used to be scouts twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago. Again my apologies.

...

eisely wrote: "Even if no EBOR ever sees a completed project workbook" It's still required to be submitted (GTA section 9.0.1.5) and to be provided for EBOR review (GTA section 8.0.1.5). Other than questioning the scout, the workbook is really the only piece that can be used to evaluate if the scout led his project. That's the only criteria I can see a scout failing an EBOR for other than scout spirit. But given that negative EBOR results are so rare to begin with, I'm not sure if it will make it more or less rare. I agree with Mad Max that this will take time to work out.

...

Though I think the workbook has very good wording about the "Final Plan" and I like that the Final Plan does not need formal approval, but it almost sounds as "Gosh, I don't have to do a final plan." I'm scared for scouts who read it that way. I wish the workbook did have more explicit wording that the scout is expected to address the contents of the final plan and the workbook is the scouts opportunity to communicate his final plans. Even if it's addressed as "Not applicable because ....". I really fear for the scouts and the beneficiaries if the scout blows off the final plan.

...

AvidSM wrote very good comments. I really like what you said. I fully agree .... except the workbook is still required. GTA section 9.0.1.5 and GTA section 8.0.1.5. I fear for the scout that submit a workbook with an empty final plan. Does he have to use it line by line? No. Does he have to write a novel? No. I think it would be okay to say something like "See printout from iCal" and then attach it. Or even just attach it. BUT, you can't submit nothing.

IMHO, if a scout submitted a workbook with an empty final plan and did not include anything else, I'd be hard pressed to let it go. IMHO, it or it's equivalent is required. I'd ask how the scout planned his project. If it's on his phone, then I'd ask him to walk thru how he used his phone and SHOW IT TO US ON THE PHONE. If not with him, I'd suggest suspending the EBOR and asking the scout to provide some amount of the materials he used to plan / coordinate his project.

Though the final plan is not "APPROVED", demonstrating that the scout addressed the content is still expected. (i.e. required) If he can't demonstrate he addressed the final plan content, how can the EBOR evaluate if he led his project.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Twocubdad - I'm with ya dude. You said it very well.

I'm not big either way on the one or more day issue, but it needs to be big enough to show leadership. And that's discussed in multiple places in the new workbook. I'm a huge advocate for the new workbook.

Anyway, nicely said. Happy New Year!(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Does anyone actually prefer the Centennial? Some parts but quality problems far outweigh the improvements. Pants that wear out and tear in six months. Stick on letters that fall off. Buttons that fall off. Seams that unravel. Belt buckles that suffer metal fatigue and break during a hike! The major improvement is the elimination of red epaulets and other flashy uses of red.

I think the money was spent on marketing hype and not on good basic materials.

the committee (which had previously resigned en masse in protest of the new system) There's been grumbling in our district too. I just keep my mouth shut as I really like the changes and was frustrated at some of the self-important stuff that was happening. I love the emphasis on service and that the planning supports the service. Workbook quote: "These elements must not overshadow the project itself, as long as the effort was well led, and resulted in otherwise worthy results acceptable to the beneficiary." Love that.

I also like that the new workbook makes the 2.5 page proposal a "proposal" and not a "plan". It is far more managable than the research paper our district required in the past. In fact, the candidate I'm working with invested about two hours in his proposal before approval. The only attachment were a few hand drawn diagrams. But they were very good diagrams.

I'll take that any day over the submissions that were sent back for update two or three times because of silly requests like ... didn't include a map to the hospital ... didn't list the size of the screws needed ... didn't supply a detailed plan for how volunteers would be recruited ... didin't list source of the shovels.

...

The big issue I see is that the district/EBOR never "officially" gets to see the final plan unless the eagle candidate "chooses" to bring the final plan with to the EBOR. The district approver did repeatedly emphasize the importance of doing the final plan and suggested strongly bringing it with to the EBOR. As the coach, I am also re-inforcing those statements.

I fear for the scout and the beneficiary if the scout blows off the final plan. Any detail oriented project could get ugly and/or fail. But I'll take that risk any day over the situation we had in the past.

Mad Max - I agree that the EBOR should be more of a celebration than a meat grinder. Some of the EBOR's I've sat on had a chairman that wanted to make it a challenging, pound-of-flesh experience. I don't really care for that at all. What's the purpose and how's that reflected in BSA publications?

Now the EBOR will have little power to evaluate the Eagle project. But to be honest, did they ever really effectively evaluate the project. Heck, if the beneficiary signed off, on what basis would a EBOR have for negatively evaluating the project, in the old or new system?

Whether it causes hard feelings or not, I'd pass it on to the DE or SE. Don't contact the CE. Let the paid guys deal with the CE (charter org exec) and the unit. I'd only mention the new family comments and alude to the previous communication.

"Two years ago I let you know of my seeing alcohol at Pack ### events. Our pack just received a new scout from that pack and they gave one reason of transfering being the use of alcohol during pack events."

Reference the details as it does affect whether it is an educational situation or a get these guys out of scouting situation.

Then move on and never mention it again to anyone.

Report to your district exec. Copy your scout executive. Document what the new family said. Document what you saw years ago. Keep an archive copy for yourself including the names of the DE and SE you contacted.

Then, never repeat the story again to anyone. Ask anyone in your pack who brings it up to never bring it up again. If it's brought up in other groups, avoid the discussion or leave.

Kudu wrote: "As punishment, I'd make him watch "Patton" and report back on what happens to great leaders who don't understand the politics of self-censorship."

Great answer. But with the addition that the adults involved must supply the popcorn and Mountain Dew. And that I get to watch the movie too.

KC9DDI wrote: "You can't just respond to ideas and positions you don't agree with by telling people to shut up and go away. " It's ignorant to assume I don't agree or that I'm telling people to shut up and go away. Read to understand before reacting.

When my seven year old tells me he's hungry, I feed him. When he tells me he's still hungry, I find something more for him. When he tells me he's hungry five minutes later, I might find something more for him. If he tells me he's hungry again within another five minutes, it's a very different issue all together. That is what I was commenting on.

KC9DDI wrote: "There's a difference between not wanting to listen to an opinion you disagree with, versus not wanting people to be allowed to express opinions you disagree with. The impression I was getting from your previous post, Fred, was that you fell into the later category. I apologize if I misinterpreted your position. Apology accepted. The example I often use is when I entered into a friendship to later realize the guy only wanted me in his Amway network. Same thing here. This is a site for discussing scouting issues. But if your only desire is being a social protester, your going to get a bad name for yourself ... independent of your beliefs.

KC9DDI ... Your line-by-line snarky response isn't useful.

KC9DDI wrote: "I wonder if there's a cause-and-effect relationship buried in there somewhere?" Could be or not. But I know plenty of atheists and gay scouters inside scouting who focus on program and not on the politics. I also know plenty of people who choose not to be in scouting because of the politics. It's the ones who choose not to be involved and then daily throw gernades at those trying to do something good that's hurtful.

KC9DDI wrote: "How else can the BSA (or US Scouting in general) improve, unless it's weaknesses are identified?" Are you so naive to think they are not identified and known? Come on. It's about social protest techniques to reduce the effectiveness of a group until things change. It's about hijacking discussions to focus on key hot bed topics.

KC9DDI wrote: "It's not an "internal issue" because of the established discriminatory policies which keep certain people external to Scouting." You clearly wanted to misunderstand. It's not internal because scouting doesn't teach sexuality and the faith components are optional. If anything, scouting exists to support what the family teaches.

KC9DDI wrote: "In other words, you want diversity in forum posts, but not in membership?" What I want is written earlier. Instead of trying to understand what I wrote, you choose to call me a hypocrite. Nice. It's not worth replying as I suspect you'll only see what you want to see.

Dude, go pick a fight with someone else.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

drmbear ... IMHO, your exactly who this forum is looking for as participants, a scouter who's looking for support and to make scouting better. This old "systematic political agenda" thread was re-opened because I realized in another thread one of the posters had 3500+ posts over ten years, all on one topic, BSA discriminization. He's a member on scoutingforall.org and an atheist social networking site. And, he's not even a scouter. He's just hear to tell us what BSA is doing wrong. Discussions get hijacked from interesting subjects to just focus yet again on the same worn out topic.

Now many of us wish BSA would get out of these political firestorms as it's not really an internal issue in scouting. There are some easy policy changes BSA could make to avoid the issues, such as BSA focusing on program structure and leaving membership choices to the charter orgs ... as they mostly do already.

BUT, it's a different thing to troll daily for the opportunity to post the evils of BSA. If ya want to do that, then also post your favorite dutch oven recipes. Or your favorite camping treks. Or which boots allow your feet to breath and also protect you ankles. Or how to handle scout medical forms. Or tell us about when a wind storm snapped the fiberglass tent poles.

Just don't be a one act play that's repeated over and over and over again.

If the section is not working for him, put "SEE ATTACHMENT ******" and write it in a separate document that you attach.

He probably needs to do that anyway for diagrams and the final plan shopping list. The material, supply and tool lists are okay for the proposal section, but too short for the final plan.

I'm coaching a scout using it right now. It seems to be working really well. Most fields shrink the font nicely, but some such as the work process area had to be a separate document. It wasn't needed for the approvals. It was needed to avoid any "magical thinking" that it would just work or just happen.

I should mention that I love the new workbook. It's well structured and very well thought out. The proposal section and proposal approvals seem to really add consistency and control to getting a project started. Too many times it would take scouts months to get project approval.

My big fear is that scouts won't do a good job on the final plan since it's not required and not required to be shown to the EBOR. I'm glad it's not required, but any scout not addressing those final topics in the final plan is planning to fail.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I agree that using "myth" on people's personal faith when in direct conversation with them is not about conversation. It's about using a loaded word and making a cheap shot.

...

Beavah wrote: "Yah, but then I'm not sure all UUA's consider themselves Christian, eh?".

Wow. I never realized that. I had to look it up.

From the uua.org web site... "In addition to holding different beliefs on spiritual topics, individual Unitarian Universalists may also identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions."

Unitarian Unversalists don't even necessarily believe in a God.

It also says: "Unitarian Universalists generally agree that "human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth.""

Not so much a religion as a dialectic group searching for truth. Interesting. Learn something every day.

Thanks for the follow up.

It sounds like the scout is finishing on a positive note. That's good. Any other discussion is moot. I hope he was given more options than finding a different troop. But, it's moot now as he turns 18 soon and then will be moving onto the military academy.

I don't really care for the quote you listed. It rings of a truism that white-washes the situation. I believe it's more the end of the scout's journey is about what the scout wants it to be about. It's the scouts responsibility to make it happen and the leaders role to support their dreams. But, it's moot now.

All scouts eventually leave scouting and at least he's leaving on a positive note.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I requested my post be deleted. I should not have done that. I reacted wrongly to my discovery.

It wasn't really "outing" as there was nothing to out. His information was directly linked thru fireside theater and his name directly used on ScoutingForAll.org and Atheist Nexus. It was more of a personal enlightenment that I shared.

I reacted the same way I reacted when I learned a relatively new friend only invited me over to bring me into his Amway network. I was thinking we were all scouters here discussing our scouting experiences.

It was wrong of me. I should not have posted direct names or links. I hope the site admin can delete them.

Merlyn - I should apologize. About an hour ago, I emailed the site admin requesting my posts to be deleted. I should not have called you out by name. It's wrong. My apologies. I hope the admin has a chance to delete my two posts.

...

"I don't see how you conclude I'm a "main poster" on atheist nexus, I've posted about 7 things back in 2009. "

Your right. I didn't realize that when I googled to the site. I thought it was your site. I didn't realize it was more like a MySpace or Facebook for atheists.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Fred's previous post has been deleted (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Great question! I'm looking too.

I'm not saying everything modern is not automatically better. Generally I agree people are people. On the committee side, I'll agree depth/skill/support is a bit less as I believe people are a more mobile, busier and less connected with their immediate community.

I'm just saying today's leaders have been exposed to more educational opportunities and ideas. People are also a bit less naive on critical topics. An obvious one is youth protection. The issue isn't new. But leaders today understand youth protection, what to look for and how to run a safer program. I believe leaders today might be a bit more sensitive of other issues and a little less likely to just take an attitude of "get over it".

I think the better question is which leadership style is more effective. Maybe a less reflective, less sensitive, wack on the head, Darwinian "get over it" leader produces a better scouts. I'm not sure. But I do believe today's leaders are as good as those in the past and better in some areas.

Does the thread question match the point of interest?

For example, I believe today's school teachers are the best that's ever existed, but I also yearn, at times, for the old days when teachers would wack a mouthy student. I fully believe that, at the appropriate time, a bit of quick immediate pain can be more effective, less traumatic and less damaging than the bureaucratic BS and extended bad behavior tolerated in today's society. BUT, I also would not want to go back.

"Are today's scout leaders as good as the ones in the past?" I absolutely believe they are. I believe the commitment and concern for the scouts has not changed. The big difference is that the current leaders are better trained and more safety conscious. The training might not be just scout training, but also through school, college or other professional growth. I just believe we have a great set of scout leaders today.

BUT that might not be the right question to ask.

I wouldn't mention the phone calls. That would put a person on the defensive and won't help. I'm sure he knows the issues and probably looking for help too.