fred8033

My experience is that friendships are priority #1 to most kids. I'd find a way to leverage it and not fight it. If they are going to spend time together anyway, let them be a patrol ... if that's what they want. http://scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/how-scouts-friendships-strengthen-patrols/

Merlyn_LeRoy - Yeah, shame on you. You just want to create ugly hatred. You know that too. Because that hate helps your goals. You just want to hide behind the dirt. That's shameful.

Beavah - Your right and everyone understands what your writing. The problem is that it doesn't help Merlyn. He has a political agenda and his agenda is served by muck raking. Stirring hatred and bigotry. It always says alot for an agenda when those advocating for it do it by damaging others. Merlyn - Shame on you.

Merln, Honestly - What's your goal? Do you want BSA's youth protection standards to change? Here they are. What do you want different? http://www.scouting.org/Training/YouthProtection.aspx I honestly think your working a separate political agenda by stiring hatred using old news against many many very good volunteers. Your demeaning others using one old topic in the hope to pursue a totally separate topic. That's just not intellectually honest. And I think that's low. You can disagree with a belief or a policy without belittling or causing hatred against so may well meaning and hard working volunteers. Shame on you.

$40 per year, every year. Covers registration, boy's life magazine and some pack costs. Scouts get next rank book in May. New scouts buy their own book when they join. The majority of the budget is covered by our fundraiser.

I've seen packs handle it two ways. - Charge full year dues with the reasoning that the pack is paying for more advancements and recognition for the graduating Webelos. - Charge half year dues with the reasoning that advancement cost is spread out over time. Either is fine. Just find your reasoning and be consistent over time. My issue is that 2nd year webelos tend to be the most expensive rank; followed by 1st year webelos. So by charging partial year dues, you are having lower ranks cover the cost of the webelos advancements. Generally it would equal out over time EXCEPT that lots of cubs drop out before webelos. So in a way, it's like a pyramid scheme. I prefer charging full dues. Keeps it simple. If parents gripe, let them pay for their own advancements and recognition. I prefer keeping dues low, less then $50. I prefer not routing any funds to the troops. Money was earned during and for cub scouts. I'd rather see it kept with the unit earning the money. ... QUESTION - If you would charge less for 2nd year Webelos because they are gone for half the year and the pack doesn't recharter them ... Would you charge Tigers more because you have to register them in the fall and again six months later? I just think it's hard to justify more or less because of time frame. Keep it simple and charge everyone the same.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Northern Star now has a new page. The old "inclusiveness" page re-routes to this one. I'm sad that Northern Star was pushed to change their policy. BUT ... I'm not sure if the policy was changed as much as re-written to be not so in-your-face defiant. http://www.northernstarbsa.org/aboutus/leadership/leadership_standards.aspx(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I also help on the district level and have helped put a few event budgets together. Not a huge number, but a few. I'm not an author of the budget, but I've helped. They are approved by the council and require a X percent mark-up to cover when other events (other districts or council) over-run their budgets. A good example is an event that purchased several thousand extra patches that they couldn't use. The theory is that the events will wash out in the long run. A few comments - Districts can buy supplies that can be used later such as flags, poles, equipment but usually only if used as part of the event that charged the fees. - Districts don't process or manage money. - Districts don't have a bank account and are not a separate financial entity. - Every event I've seen has checks written to the council. - Councils re-imburse districts per the approved budget - Districts can't keep a slush fund. To get event money out of the council, you need a receipt and an expense report. - Our DE has always been willing to make copies at the council office. We even have OfficeMax (Depot??) to make copies for us on the council budget. - The challenge is that district volunteers don't always have time to get to the DE or the right OfficeMax(Depot??) to make copies. - Not all districts are equal. One district might have a great "free" place to hold district events / camp outs. Another has to rent council property at $5 per person and $$$ for each and every building / facility being used. - Making copies isn't the issue. - It's how to pay for the more costly things. $25 for an engraved District Award Of Merit. Other awards and thank-you items. It's not unusually to spend $150 to $200 annually on district level awards / recognition / thank yous. - In the past, the district pays for awards by charging for the district dinner and having a council approved budget for that dinner. The dinner fee includes cost to cover the awards. - But district dinners are not really a sustainable model anymore. Fee people want yet another event. Ends up having 20 to 30 "paying" attendees. Food is $10 per person. $10 donation per person for awards. That makes the district dinner cost is $20 to $25 per person for food that is just average.

I've been in this debate for at least the last five years. Districts have costs but no budget!!!! If you have a camporee, the profit goes to the council. The district can't carry profit for later use. As already discussed --- Crafts, reproductions, etc Other Costs --- District awards (District Award of Merit, Distinguished Unit scouter, plaques, etc.) --- Supplies (napkins, plates, etc) The result is that many volunteers donate both their time and their money. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

churning out paper woodbadgers ... LOL.

Stealth advancement? I always thought that most of what scouts do can somehow be tied to advancement. Camping counts toward the camping merit badge and to rank requirements. Creating patrol menus, aquiring the food and cooking on the camp outs can be just to have a good camp out, but can also be used for rank advanement and the cooking merit badge. Preparing for a canoe camping trip can contribute to the canoeing merit badge. But the scout still needs to contact and work with a MBC to complete the rank requirements as published. One of the challenges we've always had was to make the troop meetings meaningful beyond announcements, sign-ups, meal planning and cleaning out the troop gear yet again. I'm glad if the SPL/PLC can use the TPF to start planning.

Peregrinator wrote: "Why would you have to ban them for adults if you have to ban them for youth?" To not be a hypocrite.

During our annual planning, the scouts choose six topics that span two months each. Usually, they choose from the Troop Program Features (BSA pubs 33110, 3111, 3112) because then they can use borrow / modify the contained meeting plans. We've never used one 100% unmodified, but it's a starter. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33110.pdf http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33111.pdf http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33112.pdf I only mention it because each topic includes documnted "advancement opportunities" both for rank and for merit badges. Also the program features strongly aligns with merit badges. So it's hard not to pick one without sort of picking a merit badge too. But it's still up to the scout to pursue the MB, get the card, contact the counselor, etc. It's just that the troop is working on some of those topics too and our outings are probably aligned with the topic too.

NJCubScouter - Perhaps you hit it on the head when you said you just don't see the point. I've been re-reading this forum's discussion threads and these exact same debates have been going on for 10+ years. Requirements versus guidelines. BSA control versus unit leader control. It's never ending and there are many hard headed people involved. Leaders asserting there's no real standard so units can create their own. The problem is that I'm mostly polite when I say that I think Beavah's example produces good results. It might but it also burns way too many scouts. I just don't want my sons or their friends or anyone that I'm responsible for near that type of leader or that type of program. I want them involved in the program as BSA documents it. No more. No less. I'm just sad when I see such misguided comments and advice as I often see published in this forum.

Beavah - As always, justifying your own rogue interpretations by picking and choosing the generic to confuse and ignore the very specific. You confuse and ignore the specifics. BSA also writes... Charter & Bylaws, Article X, Section 1, Clause 5 - "The Boy Scout requirements for ranks shall be the basis for the Scouts advancement." Charter & Bylaws, Article X, Section 1, Clause 6 - "Section 1. Boy Scout Advancement, clause 6. Ranks. There shall be the following ranks in Boy Scouting: Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, Life, and Eagle. The requirements shall be those authorized by the Executive Board and set forth in the official Scouting publications. Eagle palms may also be awarded on the basis of requirements authorized by the Executive Board and set forth in the official Scouting publications." Those official publications are BSA Pub 33088 GTA and BSA Pub 34765 Boy Scout Requirements. Don't have 34765 with me now. My version was older and put into troop library. GTA 1.0.0.0 "The Guide to Advancement is the official source for administering advancement in all Boy Scouts of America programs: Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting, Venturing, and Sea Scouts." GTA 4.2.3.1 Active Participation ... specifies how to interpret advancement. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf ACPP page 24 (for before Oct 2011) "A scout will be considered "active in his unit if he is ..." http://scoutmaster.typepad.com/2008AdvancementGuideBook.pdf Those are the specifics. The Bylaws that you committed to follow even says BSA will publish and approve the specficis. The scout was not "wholly absent" and ya don't punish scout for failure by the leaders. Heck, it sounds like the leaders did stay in contact. Not as much as ya want, but still some. That's the clear cut answer. Advancement is meant to be fair and under the control of the scout, not the whim of the scoutmaster. ... It's funny because as part of looking this up, I found a scouter.com forum thread in 2007 that pointed out it's been published that way by BSA since 2006. http://www.freewebs.com/activescout/activescout.htm Here's a funny quote from that thread that is still applicable today. ScoutNut wrote: "This is great, but I don''t think this will really change much of anything. This has been on the National Web site for a while now and has been pointed out to those who do their own thing. They still did their own thing. ... The folks who do their own thing don''t read the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, or if they do read it, they don''t really care what it says because they will always find a way (any way) to justify doing things their way. " And Beavah Beavah was right in the debate back in 2007 confusing and distracting the debate to justify leaders doing what they want instead of what BSA publishes.

Beavah wrote: "If yeh feel for some reason that BSA advancement isn't workin' for yeh, then I'd say fix how yeh are thinking about advancement and ignore fred8033 or bnelon44. They represent to my mind a relatively odd viewpoint that's not in keepin' with what da Scouting program has been for 100 years. " Generally what Beavah said is good. But if you ignore what bnelson44 and I write, you better just recognize as Beavah did earlier today that you should just ignore BSA too. That's what it really going on. On the flip side, if your tired of representing an undocumented program that contradicts what BSA publishes, you should just ignore most of what Beavah says.

What do I expect of Eagle Scouts? Strong character. Respect for authority and rules. Never to use terms such as "tarnishing the reputation of Eagles" or any other better-than-thou term.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

GKlose - Sorry, that's how I view it. It's wrong to judge whether a scout earns eagle based on a separate agreement instead of the BSA requirements. I know you mean well and that your doing good things with your troop. But good intentions and good people still make mistakes and do wrong. You used current expectations and policies that were put in place significantly after the scout had his life BOR. Those policies also weren't enforcable until starting Oct 2011, 29 months after the scouts life BOR. He needed six months active. That's it.

And thus the advancement mess we will be eternally stuck in. We have many view points. - ends justify the means advancement camp very well represented by Beavah and others. - not really requirements as much as guidelines advancement camp very well represented IM_Kathy, NJCubScouter and others. - contract requirements advancement camp very well represented by fred8033, Eagle732, the BSA and others. All three can produce good troop programs and good results.

Beavah - The failure being refered to was the past weakly administered troop program and no expectations for active. The question on the table really is "did this scout fullfil the active requirement?" Life BOR on May 2009. Attended an outing in August 2009. Atended another in 2012. Three years registered and in good standing since Life BOR. Seven years (probably) actually registered and in good standing since joining the troop. BSA ACPP defined active as #1 registered, #2 not dismissed from troop and #3 leaders in contact with the scout. In 2009, troop had no published policy on being "active". In 2009, BSA did not accept troop policies to establish "active". Scout only needed six months of last three years. I don't even know why this is being discussed. It sounds more like two very good, but frustrated leaders dealing with a mess caused by a past weak troop program. I don't even see where this is even debatable. Completed his eagle project. That itself requires significant activity, leadership and service. Eagle projects ARE unit activities. Always have been. So he completed an eagle project (unit activity, significant scope, leadership, service), but was not "active" enough ? Really? Completed his POR requirement. How do you complete a POR but not be "active"? Scout was under scruity to meet minimum POR expectations. So he met POR expectations without being "active"? Completed the remaining merit badges. Needed SM signature to start Had to work with MBC(s). Had to spend signficant time to complete them. Fulfilled BSA's active definition. ACPP - (May 2009 - Sep 2011) - Fulfilled by being registered and not dismissed. He was registered for three years in the troop, was at some meetings and did at least two camp outs in that time. GTA - (Oct 2011 - current) - Fulfilled by having outside activities. Doesn't matter if he could have participated more during his less busy times. He could have slept less too. The point is he had GTA qualifying outside activities too. For Star, Life and Eagle, there has never been a BSA requirement to camp or go on outings. Your troop may have one and it could be marginally enforced from Oct 2011 to current. I say "marginally" because then you get into the outside activity debate with the scout and, I hope, the margin of doubt favors the scout. I'm glad the unit leaders are willing to congratulate the scout if he earns it. I hope they are willing to offer him an apology too. The simple fact is the troop should not have asked him to enter into this "agreement" earlier into the year. The scout is fully justified pursuing a disputed EBOR. I wish him the best.

(duplicate)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

(duplicate)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

This question is raised by another thread. Suppose the last rank advancement a specific scout was three years ago. Time passes. The scout starts participating at a much lower level for a year or two and that level is unacceptable. The scout needs six months active for advancement. QUESTION - Which six months do you use? The first six months after the rank advancement where he met expectations or the last two years where he did not meet expectations? If you choose the most recent activity, how do you justify ignoring the quantity of time where the scout met expectations. ... Follow on ... during those three years, the scout has at least six months of outside activities, on a now-and-then basis. Say three months of band here, a month of church service trip and three months of lacross. But the scout has at least two years where he was not as active. QUESTION - Does that meet the six months of "active" per the new GTA that allows outside activities to qualify for being "active"? He only needs six months of active and he can show six months of outside meaningful activities. Or do you say that well he could have been more involved in the troop for the other two+ years and ignore those six months of meaningful outside activities that qualify under the GTA.

GKlose wrote: "I've said all along, it is near impossible to improve standards in a troop (...) without actually improving the standards." Hard to argue against improving standards. Just don't confuse it with re-writing history. That's really the issue here. Two leaders are trying to improve things are still stuck recognizing scout advancement that was mostly done under the previous leaders who they view as having a less than stellar program. It's not fun putting your name on the paper, but that's really the fair thing to do. We don't penalize scouts for the failures of previous leaders.

GKlose wrote: "I've said all along, it is near impossible to improve standards in a troop (...) without actually improving the standards." Hard to argue against improving standards. Just don't confuse it with re-writing history. That's really the issue here. Two leaders are trying to improve things are still stuck recognizing scout advancement that was mostly done under the previous leaders who they view as having a less than stellar program. It's not fun putting your name on the paper, but that's really the fair thing to do. We don't penalize scouts for the failures of previous leaders.