fred8033

Sorry if I'm preachy at times. It's my personality quirk.

Every scout has always had the option to earn Eagle in less than two years. I agree that it does not produce the best result. Scouting is a journey of experiences; not an award. .... I'd ask a question though. You do not encourage, fine. I fully agree. ... But do you discourage scouts earning in less than two years? I see far too many scouters actually trying to slow down scouts. I just don't think that's an example we should be setting. I pray that I've never "slowed down" a scout. I say that because of a memory when I was new parent in Boy Scouts. The troop had a scout that was all excitement and energy. He'd earn awards as fast as he could. He loved completing requirements and doing new things. It wasn't his parents. It was him. A few ASMs told him multiple times to relax; slow down; you've got time. Sadly, he left and went to do other things. He was at least first class and way, way more merit badges than needed for Eagle. Camped monthly with us for at least two years. The kid basically had completed all requirements for Eagle except a project. ... I saw that holding him back as a major cause of him choosing to spend his time elsewhere. I'll always be sad he did not finish. Each scout has his own journey. Our job is to let each scout have his own journey, experiences ... and time-frame. As earning Eagle is highly valued, opening the door to new Eagle candidates was gauranteed to be a race. A race to be first. A race against time. ... "Inaugural class" is the best way to recognize that it's not a race and it's about the journey. BSA is not recognizing the fastest. Rather, BSA is recognizing the huge transition welcoming girls to scouting. This has needed to happen for a long time. We should celebrate. I hope we tell our male scouts that too.

I started thinking if I could find an authoritative source. My effort was pitiful, but interesting. I pulled up an old copy of the movie "Follow Me Boys". The scouts called their scoutmaster Lem. The adults were formal with each other (last name basis) until they knew each other as friends, close to an inversion of today's practices.

So so true.

It's interesting. Does that mean some BSA personnel might be for actual liquidation.

I agree manners calls for referring to people you don't know by title. Beyond that it's a style and choice. Perhaps this is why troops can be so different. As "colonel" was brought up, perhaps we can think of scouts on a continuum. On one end, is the military --> Stand up straight and salute the those in charge. On the other end is Big Brothers Big Sisters of America --> a friendly, first-name basis mentoring relationship. Both styles are absolutely valid. Our SM for 15 years was always <first name>. He was a good friend to the scouts; a friendly ear; and a mentor. He did not really "lead" the scouts and definitely did not put himself in-charge of the scouts. It's what I wanted for my sons. I consciously avoided the local militant troop. With that said, I'd put our troop up against the other troop any day of the year. Camping. Adventure. Responsibility. Independence. Please do not take this as disrespect. I honor and respect those who choose the military. As a parent, the hardest years for me when my enlisted son was on the other side of the world. Once, we did not see him for over two years. Often, we went weeks / months without communication. He was mostly safe, but it was the hardest years.

So if churches are at risk because they "chartered" a troop with incidents of abuse, does that mean that US government should be a co-defendant? Congress chartered BSA. Every year the President of the United States accepts a face-to-face report out on scouting. For 100 years, BSA's national jamboree happened mostly on a military base. US Military accepts Eagle scout as evidence for immediate military promotion. For most of a 100 years, local governments, schools, police, etc actively involved themselves in scouting. Perhaps the 100B settlement should just be tacked onto the national debt. It's pennies compared to the national spending for the last year. Seriously, the congressional charter is honorific without any substance. Or that's my view.

It's why cases like this are supposed to have time boundaries. The vast majority of these cases lack people who can defend themselves. Deceased. 40 years ago. Society has DRASTICALLY changed. Abuse is always wrong ... but that does not make this court case right.

The same can be said of scout leaders. The vast majority are ethical, high standards individuals. Now, BSA is in financial bankruptcy pursued by ethically bankrupt lawyers. ... my sad attempt at humor in this ugly situation ...

I'm strongly a first name person, scout or adult. It's about reducing barriers to communication. I want the scouts relaxed and willing to discuss challenges. I don't view this as teaching courtesy or manners. I see that taught in a 1000% small lessons that we should be having throughout scouting. Set expectations to be consistent. If you expect formal from the scouts, then also be formal to the scout. Anything else sounds like a power trip.

I'm absolutely supporting YPT, registered MBCs, but I hope never to have to see that. It's hard enough to keep unit records straight. I can easily see having to record a six month old MB, but the person is not registered anymore as a MBC. It would create real nightmares. BSA needs to rethink / redesign the role and process of MBs.

Yeah. That should have changed a long time ago. How tools work is effectively another training mechanism. If ScoutBook allowed units to register their own MBCs, that exactly the same as BSA saying units can manager their own MBCs. That was never intended.

QUESTION ... From what I understand, units could not assign the role of MBC. The change is that units won't be able to change the MBs counciled by an existing MBC. Is this right? I'm surprised this functionality was there before. MBC has always been a district / council setup role. Many of the comments above are 100% correct. YP and YPT is always our first concern. MB role in scouting needs to be re-thought. MBC role / selection needs to be re-thought. I'm hoping this does not happen, but if BSA really wanted to lock it down ... then require ScoutBook data entry to have a valid, currently registered MBC recorded as part of the MB tracking / award. Right now, our troop can award a MB without recording the MBC who approved it. I'm cringing even saying this as I don't want to deal with that. Nope. Don't want this to happen.

919 awarded in 2019. I'm betting less than 200 sold nation wide. Maybe 400 as I'm betting counselors buy them more than scouts.

You win. I surrender.

Sadly, I had to search hard to find the exact model I used as a kid.

Wow. I feel like I've had high school flashbacks ... Just my preference ... PDF can be organized into a nice on-line library. Ascii and Web pages make for poor organization. Just my preference. Only My opinions ... ... PDFs ... Professional? Yes. Can very much be so. Can easily look like a professionally published document. ... Hyperlinks are ASCII ... Yes, but not clickable and not easy to use in an ASCII doc. ... Eagle workbook. Uniquely difficult in BSA because of the extra complexity of an editable PDF. Basic PDFs are well integrated into most all phones, computers, web browsers now.

I prefer PDF documents as it effectively looks and feels like a book. Professional. Illustrations. Cover page. Index. Table of contents. Cross references. Searchable. Most importantly, printable into a real document.

That's our troop. A few scouts did high adventure. The whole troop did an extra summer week (in addition to summer camp) in one of the national forests / state parks in the 5 or 6 state area. Great experiences. And, it was nice to see our scouts in public with their uniforms.

I really hope Sea Base is not lost. I fear it will be, but it's one of BSA's crown jewels with a very unique opportunity for our scouting youth. Loss of those properties would be extremely painful.

I wish we had a heart emoji here. It's how it should be. A scout is thrifty. We just don't need printed versions every year.

So so true. It's why scouts are in scouts. Being active. Doing things. Making friends.

"Have" versus "should" is the issue and a huge area of confusion. Ask five people then you will get twelve opinons. Units are "owned" by their charter org. Owned means same entity. Same entity means same incorporation ... same EIN. My experience is many COs are reluctant to give their EINs out to the scouting unit. My experience is most units have their own EIN because they go to a bank to open a bank account. Then, a banker sends them to the IRS non-profit registration site and creates a new non-profit entity for them. Most units never file paperwork ... taxes, annual non-profit status registration, etc. Most units just fly under the radar ... but that doesn't mean the units are setup correctly. In my 20 years, no unit has gotten in trouble with the IRS or state authorities. But it doesn't make it safe or right. I'd get more and more worried as more dollars travel thru the account each year. It's one thing to route $10,000 thru a troop account. It's another to route $60,000 or $100,000 thru the account.

Yep. Another primary purpose is to expose the scout to new areas that might interest them. This is defeated with so, so many overlapping with school and rank requirements. Instead, scouts should be able to leverage available experts. Maybe some troops have access to an expert astronomer. Maybe others have access to camp at a dairy farm. QUESTION ... Should we re-think the MBC idea? It's subverted by using registered leaders in your own troop. Maybe, keep existing MBCs, but also let troops / unit committees additionally recognize MBs where a local expert is available, but not registered as a MBC. In that case, a registered leader could tag along with multiple scouts and serve as the person who confirms the MB requirements were covered. I don't have the right answer, but the current MB program is not as great as people make out and often a joke to many of the scouts.

Dead on right. I think your camping statement is right. Most scouts don't appreciate the camping MB because they start in their 3rd or 4th year of camping with the scouts. Most of the topics in the MB SHOULD be done in your first six months as a scout. ... It's like the fifth time I had to re-certify electrostatic discharge training. You roll your eyes having to do it yet again. Imagine that 5th time getting a MB for it. I'd roll my eyes too. Even worse, when schools cover topics they take quarters or whole classes to cover the topic. MB coverage can feel very shallow, choppy and rehashing school topics. Even worse if the MB effectively is filling out a packet to then flatly discuss with the MBC. Tempted ... If I were the scoutmaster, I'd automatically start every scout on the camping MB. Make sure the topics are covered with each scout. On their 20th night camping with the troop, they automatically get the badge ... (assuming we covered all the other details). I knew a scoutmaster who did similar for canoeing. No one likes to waste time. No one is proud of unearned praise. This DE&I badge is exactly that. Put it as rank requirements, but a DE&I MB is an eye roller. I wish there was a mechanism to focus on "growth" and "choice"; not specific MBs. Leave required specifics to the "ranks". Perhaps a way for a SM to replace certain MBs with others where the scout would grow. ... OR ... perhaps a way to automatically complete specific MB requirements before they have a MBC. Example, this easily applies to first class, camping, cooking, citz, etc. "Mr. SM ... I just got an B+ in my American Government class in school. Can that fulfill my Citz of the nation MB?" ... Our patrol assigned responsibilities, selected tent locations, setup tents and slept in them. Can you sign-off on the MB requirements now? (before starting the MB and having a MBC)