fred8033

BSA rules set the tone without addressing all twists and turns. A wise scouter once said you can't write concisely and still handle every possible nuanced twist. Leaders do need to interpret. It would be automatic if it was less than six nights, explicitly in the published rule. What about "resident"? Setup / tear down each night is not a resident camp. So not long term? Further, your own camping site is usually not considered a "resident camp". Resident camps are BSA run fixed location with fixed infrastructure sites. State parks, river edge camps, etc are have never generally been called "resident camps". Situations like this require a good leader to use wise, compassionate judgement. And yes, we might reach different conclusions for different reasons. It's up to the leader and the scout to work together to make a positive result.

I fear that scouts sometimes are harder on themselves than others would be. I fear that many of us would pass him if he's a good scout, but the scout might block himself. IMHO, you have a legitimate argument that the canoe trek was not a long-term as each night was a completely different camp site with setup and tear down.

Your outside. With scouters. It's not perfect, but celebrate being together and honoring new members.

Yeah. I'm probably reading more into that others. One hand in pocket while other is up is common. I eas reading it as two hands not up. Probably best I start stepping away. I just don't spend enough time in scouting anymore.

I meant to mention in my previous post. I'm pretty lenient most of the time. I'm more concerned with active and program than formalities. BUT, this is a hard show stopper for me and is something that is immediately fixed. If the SPL won't put his hand up for oath and law ... and especially the Pledge ... I'd remove the scout as SPL. He's setting a bad example. That's one of the most important roles of the SPL: to set an example. I'd immediately talk to the SPL at the next appropriate moment and talk about offending others by not showing respect to the Pledge. Setting an example. etc, etc. ... IMHO, it's one of the few places that I do take a hard line. We can argue about holding elbow at 90 degrees. BUT, you don't keep your hands in your pocket during the pledge. Period.

Wow. Times change !!!! LED lanterns are a game changer. I never would have guessed LED lanterns would be a patrol box choice. BUT, it makes sense. Times change.

Thanks. I really question my advice these days as I don't spend all my life in scouting anymore. I'll be moving onto my next journey soon. I think that journey will be the health nut phase.

Absolutely agree !

Yeah, the scout spirit requirement can be problematic in many different ways. It should be obvious to most scouters that the scout spirit requirement is left to the SM to sign off. Our SM did mention to us new leaders that he wanted to be the signer on that one. ... As for the previous SM, boundaries can often get confused with transitions. Your old SM might not have realized he was doing something wrong I have to ask ... do you think the scout did an end around you? Was it intentional? Or a spacey scout? OR (my thinking) the former leader signed and the scout doesn't know how to really handle something unearned and is quiet waiting to see how it plays out. IMHO ... Let the former scout leader know he should not be signing books for scouts in the troop. Even more explicit, let him know you are keeping the scout spirit and SMC requirements for you to sign only. Unit commissioners should know better. They are to be a friend of the unit without stepping on toes. ... I suspect this is the ugly problem of a former leader now being the unit commissioner. Let all the unit leaders know that .... in a friendly way ... you are reserving the scout spirit and SMC for you to sign only. You have the right as the SM to decide how to delegate your signing authority. Communicate it. Get everyone on the same page. ... Similar ... if it was my troop, only ASMs sign books. Troop committee members don't work with scouts. You don't get to choose who can sign off on MBs or if the MBC signed correctly. BUT for rank requirements, the SM has 100% control over who is delegated to sign scout rank requirements. SMC - Talk with the scout and sign. It's not a pass / fail requirement. The requirement is "did you have a conversation with your SM?" ... Honestly, he fulfilled the requirement months ago when you and he talked about the scout spirit requirement. ... I would have signed the SMC requirement at that time as a positive way to close out the discussion, where I said I expected more for scout spirit. Let the scout know that you thought you explicitly said you wanted to be the signer of the scout spirit requirement. Discuss with him. Let him represent what happened in his words. It might have been an honest misunderstanding. But it calls attention to the issue. Internally, he'll be squirming. So be kind. Ask him how he wants to handle the requirement. If he says, he'll do better with the Eagle requirement, then call Life done. Move on. Set expectations for the Eagle signature, explicitly saying you will not accept anyone else signing. ... AND THEN ... manage it as part of him earning Eagle. Rank is not something to guard as earned or not earned. It's a tool to affect character and growth. So it's like a manager giving a compliment sandwich. Start positive. Communicate what you expect different and to change. End positive.

I've begun to believe those that volunteer at district level tend to hurt their own scout units. Not all, but a good number. Distractions. Confused priorities. Mixed signals. A person only has so much time. Time to work a full time professional job to earn money. Marriage and their own kids. Unit volunteering. District volunteering. As we've seen scouting affect marriages, I've begun to accept that there is a feedback loop going on also at the district to unit level. There are some advantages having a district volunteer in your scouting unit, but there are also big risks going the other way.

LOL ... You're right. I'm so used to stopping at the lines above the final signatures. I did not see the word was moved below. I sit corrected. ... I still stay with my original assertion. Eagle rank application is not required, but you can't earn Eagle without it.

A well thought out answer. I need to find when #2 had the words "on your Eagle Scout Rank Application" added. It would be within the last 12 years. The handbook I just grabbed does not say that. As you point out, it is in BSA's eagle rank requirements statement though. Hmmm... This is about BSA documentation biting us again. Someone added words without thinking about the circular requirement and how all the piece parts work together. It's circular because most scouts don't complete the Eagle rank application until they think they are done completing the requirements, but they can't complete the application without filling out the Eagle rank application. ... Worse. By putting it in requirement #2, now many scouts for years have not been in explicit compliance with completing the first six eagle rank requirements before they turn 18. A large number of Eagle applications are completed after the scout turns 18. BSA has long had the position that the Eagle rank application is not required to be filled out before the scout turns 18. That's always been clear. Page 12 on Eagle rank app timing. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/2014_april-may.pdf?_ga=2.50163238.1600529180.1668055739-2140547674.1658366459&_gl=1*18mfjm7*_ga*MjE0MDU0NzY3NC4xNjU4MzY2NDU5*_ga_20G0JHESG4*MTY2ODA1NTczOS41LjEuMTY2ODA1NzA2Mi42MC4wLjA. I will be sticking with my original assertion though. Eagle rank application is not required, but you can't earn Eagle without it. This is a BSA's documentation issue. Nuanced argument ... A massive amount of Eagle scouts don't fill out the Eagle rank application before they turn 18. So if Eagle rank app is a requirement, then those scouts have aged out and it's too late. Inconsistent requirements / documentation The Eagle rank application now only has six requirements. EBOR is not listed as a requirement. Surprising as like I was caught that #2 now includes Eagle rank app, the rank application itself doesn't list the EBOR as a requirement. BSA rank says #7 EBOR as "requirement" https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Eagle_Rank_Requirements_2018.pdf BSA Eagle application only has 6 requirements. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/512-728_WB_fillable.pdf "Between 6 & 7" is a callout; not a requirement. It's listed before #7 (EBOR) and it's definitely not part of #6 (SMC) Intention ... BSA rank application is more consistent with intention as EBOR is not in the control of the scout and often can't get it done before they turn 18. Eagle rank requirements don't include the Eagle app, but you can't earn Eagle without it. I say this as all Eagle rank requirements need to be completed before the scout turns 18. ... now this is a fun discussion ...

It says "unit leader". If the SM has delegated blue cards and other ranks stuff, talk on phone with the existing SM or CC. If okay, sign and submit. If you want to help the council registrar (or person who processes the paperwork), insert a note about that this is temporary or that a transition is happening. That would be nice, but not necessarily required. Keep the paperwork moving ... for many reasons. Also ... requirements are in the BS handbook. Eagle app is not a requirement, but you can't achieve Eagle without it.

Late at night. Forgot this channel is not just about EBORs. It just came up because of comment about Eagle scouts not having skills. But the point is the same. BORs are not the point to fix advancement failures. BORs are the time to find out the troop is having trouble. I do 100% agree the advancement program needs drastic redesign. I'd be up for something significantly different. ... The most fundamental part I'd like to see is the scout-facing advancement requirements be at least half the number of words.

Fully disagree. EBORs do not exist to change advancement expectations at the end after years of failure by troops and many, many adults. I agree that every Eagle scout should be able to light a lantern and do basic 1st class scouting skills. I disagree that it's okay to try to enforce it right at the end. ... EBORs are more of a friendly conversation similar to the SMC, but done by other adults. Now ... if you want to assert all BORs should be youth or non-troop. We can talk. If you want to say the advancement program, shoudl be drastically different, fine. I just disagree that the EBOR as now positioned can do anything meaningful to fix the advancement.

Agreed. I'm writing from the point that I am comfortable now with units that shut down. We should not feel bad or guilty or a failure. It's just that the magic mix is gone. Primary concern is giving our scouts (and our sons) the best scouting experience possible. That might mean letting small troops close. Not the right answer for everyone.

We (adults) can get so caught up on if we are doing it right that we get distracted from whether the scouts find the troop fun and meaningful place to be. That means program. ... Yes we want scout-led, effective PLCs, teaching leadership, etc, but program drives the health of the unit.

I think this is well stated, well thought-out and responsible. Don't force a fight with a bad situation. If another troop is doing well, you can be serving your scouts well by getting them into a larger, healthier troop. It's not an easy or automatic transition, but it's often the best choice.

Yeah. The 60% down in cubs will follow and track to 60% down in troops. The peaks and valleys can be tracked as they age. The 911 attack happened during recruiting. We could see that in numbers for years.

After years of my arguing, I'm flipping sides. I'd like to see youth run/staffed BORs too. Troop adults get much value out of the BORs. It's often uncomfortable and clumsy. But, there could be lots of value having scouts listen to one of their own give them feedback. Perhaps one or two adults sitting at a distance, but within hearing range. It opens conversations between the scouts. It creates connections. It also would help an 11 year old feel comfortable talking to a 16/17 year old. etc, etc, etc. I will respect, salute and fulfil the GTA rules, but I'd like to see it changed.

Never encountered the issue, but then again we never used the lamp at the same time as the stove, etc. Our challenge was always too many things close to each other and too many hoses coming off near each other. The really bad was when multiple patrols tried to tap off the same large propane tank. If you use a large tank, still have one per patrol so they can camp and cook separately. Because of that, I prefer the small propane tanks for unit camping. But then again, I prefer white gas because of energy density and cold weather use.

Agreed. The MB program is not highly consistent. I'm not sure it needs to be. I have less trouble with summer camp than others as I'm more concerned about giving the scout new, unique, growing experiences. Others treat jumping the MB requirements as the key point of the game. ... It's probably somewhere in between. Then again, I don't think the leadership or troop program or camping expectations are very consistent either. Scouting has a huge variance away from average. It's one reason I'd almost rather have rank reflect number of nights camping / hiking, etc. IMHO, there is little reason an Eagle scout doesn't have 100 nights of camping. I'd be happy with an Eagle scout at 75 nights. IMHO, an Eagle scout should never have less than 30 nights of camping. Heck, I'd expect a first class scout to have 20+ nights of camping ... or (20 - 2*(number of overnight storms)) ... LOL.

That does not 100% map. Even if the unit leader signs, the unit can still apply the above GTA 7.0.4.7. GTA 7.0.4.7 exists to give the unit flexibility to correct a bad situation. Very similar to the BOR discussion in this thread. My point is it is absolutely wrong to think / treat the unit leader signatures as approving the badge. That is absolutely not the point of the unit leader signing the badge. The point is: The MBC approves the badge; not the unit leader.

Minor clarification. It's just the MBC signature that defines the badge as done. The unit leader signature is just evidence that the badge was handed over to the unit. Proof that "hey, I gave you the merit badge card. I have proof." ... it's not confirming the badge was earned. That's fully in the hands of the merit badge counselor.

Think of it not as "power" and more as "flexibility". There are too many possible situations to write clean, concise rules that handle everything. So, BSA documents the recommended approach and mindset. ... From there, the BOR can address scout misbehavior, parents abusing the advancement system, etc, etc, etc. If the BOR uses good judgement, the appeal levels will backup and support the BOR. If not, then the BOR can easily be overridden to support the scout. Recently answered here. Short answer yes. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/08/26/ask-us-anything-we-answer-some-of-your-most-frequently-asked-questions-3/#:~:text=From the BSA's registration guidebook,far away from each other. If this is related to this situation, I'd really question the scout and the adults involved. I'd really, really, really hate seeing the troops pitted against one another. Scout active in one troop, but trouble with getting advanced. So, they work advancement in the other troop. IMHO, this is when adults need to start talking and working together. ... Perhaps BSA should emphasize rank advancement happens within your primary registration. I know I'd be really upset with a secondary registration troop that promoted the rank of a scout primarily registered in my troop ... especially if our troop was having issues with the scout.