FScouter

I dont know what a eagle advisor is. Maybe a position devised by a unit committee? It is not a position defined by BSA. The Eagle Project Workbook has a spot for approval signatures for the completed project. One for the representative of the organization on the receiving end of the project, and one for the Scoutmaster/ Coach/ Advisor". The Scoutmaster would sign the workbook for a Scout in a troop; a Varsity Coach would sign for a Scout on a Varsity team; a Venturing Crew Advisor would sign for a Scout in a Venturing Crew. I dont believe there is any provision for a unit committee person or eagle advisor to sign in place of the unit leader. The same would apply to the Eagle Scout Rank Application.

From the Advancement Policies book: "... if the unit leader or unit committee does not recommend the Scout for a board of review, or if the unit leader or unit committee does not sign the Eagle Scout application, the Scout or other interested party may appeal the decision to the next level." The next level would be the district advancement committee. The district committee could then decide to hold the board of review without involving the unit.

To the consternation of others, Im here to point out that while there may be 38 opinions on how to change a light bulb, BSA has already figured out the most effective way of doing so and it may be found in the book.

Thanks, Hops. Foul and profane language, even when encoded in an acronym or anagram is beneath the dignity of Scouters and not appropriate in these forums. Nobody is fooled. Thus, references have been deleted.

What is "anyone on the left"?

It sounds like "the SM and the great majority of the other adult leaders" have not learned anything from chapter 8 of the Scoutmaster Handbook, "Troop Program Planning". Or they have chosen to ignore it.

The Cub Scout Leader book has a good discussion on pack finances, developed after years of experience with what works and what doesn't.

The Cub Scout Leader Book has a list of 16 or 18 pack positions and position responsibilities.

Surely they didn't steal the clays? Likely they found them scattered across the shotgun range and were simply cleaning up the environment.

Very cool. Once again we dispel the myth that travel in uniform "is required for insurance purposes".

According to the Insignia Guide, either way is correct.

I believe the quote from the national web site to which you are referring is However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position. Somehow that has been twisted around to support a notion that if a boy does nothing in his position, he has still met the requirements as long as the SM or youth leadership has not removed him from the position before the time portion of the requirement has passed. I missed the Philmont training, but somehow I doubt that was what was being taught. What we may now be hearing on these forums is the 16th generation of hearsay. Ever play the telephone game? I wouldnt be so quick to blame this on the eccentricities of how da office in Irving works. Its the generations of gossip that follow that get it all mucked up. When in doubt, look it up in writing.

Stuff found on a local council website should be taken with a grain or two of salt. One can read stuff all over the internet: council, district, troop, private websites, and discussion forums. What one reads may reflect national policy or it may be something else. Official BSA policy is best found in official BSA publications available to all Scouts and Scouters. Two lines quoted from a confidential letter about one particular Scouts advancement appeal says very little. What does the rest of the letter say? Have they been quoted out of context to support a personal opinion? What were the circumstances of the advancement denial? Of the appeal? Why do those two lines contradict a dozen other BSA sources?? They fly in the face a ton of official BSA writings about positions of responsibility and advancement.

"According to National the SM has NO CHOICE, time in position constitutes approval." No, that's not a correct statement. "National" does not say that. "Remember that the scout still gets FULL CREDIT for all time served, performance not withstanding" No. Time served is only one aspect of the requirement, not the entire requirement. The duties of the position must be fulfilled as well.

Ed, that is not correct. The requirement is not for a boy to get a check-off in his book. The requirement is to do the work and learn it. One of the purposes of the board of review is to determine if all the requirements were completed. If through thoughtful questioning the board finds the boy did not fulfill the duties of his position of responsibilty, it is entirely correct that they defer his advancement. The board must inform the boy what must be done to meet the requirement, and follow up with a written letter. This process is not "adding to the requirements", it is following BSA advancement policy.

My Boys Life arrived yesterday, so I had to take a close look to confirm Eds comment that the magazine is filled with more ads for garbage than with content, and the other comment that there are 75 ads selling crap per 1 article about Scouting. Heres the actual content: 7 pages of ads total (12 %) in the entire magazine including covers: Baseball cards (full page inside front cover) Navy scholarships (full page) Upcoming Mimzy mystery movie (full page) Estes model rockets (1/3 page) Random House ad for an artic adventure book (1/3 page) Mail order size ads for camps, military academies, knives, Campmor, etc. (13 ads total, 1 1/3 pages total) Kraft mac & cheese Spiderman (full page) Baseball cards (full page back cover) The entire magazine is 56 pages which leaves 49 pages of content (87 1/2%). Im impressed, both with the amount of content, and the quality of the ads. Keep up the good work Pedro!

Oh. I wasnt looking for personal opinions about likes and dislikes. Everybodys got em. I may not like the new application form, or one of the 8 methods, or the number of merit badges required for Eagle rank, but my personal opinion does not make BSA incorrect. Ed is implying that BSA is not always correct. I was looking for him to point out what he is thinking is incorrect.

"Just drives me crazy that there are those who feel the BSA is always correct regardless of what they do." Help me out here Ed. I'm over 50 and don't remember stuff, except that BSA IS always correct. Can you give an example of where BSA is ever wrong?

Are you willing to pay an additional $1 a year to pay for the lost advertising revenue?? How much would you be willing to pay to have no advertising at all?

"What is puzzling is why National didn't post the same BOR text that CVC posted on the National web site" The answer provided to the FAQ What can a Scoutmaster do is poorly answered by essentially saying theres nothing you can do. Only a volunteer writing an FAQ on a local council web site would get away with an answer like that. Theres a ton of stuff out a SM can do to help a boy be successful in a position of responsibility. Its a lousy FAQ answer to cite 1 or 2 lines out of a confidential letter to wrongly promote the notion that time in the position is good enough to meet the requirement. Time in position is most certainly NOT a policy. Indeed, it is abundantly clear that the policy for positions of responsibility is that the boy is expected to fulfill the duties of the job. The Boy Scout Handbook, SM Handbook, Advancement Guide, PL Handbook, Troop Leadership Training, and the new training materials on the BSA web site all support the idea that the boy is to actually do the work. The Scoutmaster is ultimately responsible to see that the boy is trained and is successful. There is nothing in any publication anywhere that suggests that meeting the POR requirement is merely holding the title for the required minimum time. I suspect that appeals to the national council are usually decided in favor of the boy because the adult leaders have first failed to adequately perform their responsibilities. A boy's failure after 4 months or 6 months in a position is simply not an option available to a Scoutmaster.

"I think right now that things are in a state of flux/confusion as a result of the memo from national stating that time in rank fulfills the POR requirement." What memo? I didn't get any memo. Who got a memo?

The big draw for me at Philmont was the activities at the daily destinations. Hike in the morning, arrive at the destination, set up camp, and enjoy. Philmont is not the place to go if all you want is to rack up a lot of mileage. You can do that anywhere. Pick a relatively low mileage trek, arrive early in the afternoon, and take advantage of everything the staff has to offer.

Tongue-in-cheek? I dont think so. The uniform police term is a guilt response. It is always used in conjunction with defending substitutions such as walmart pants, or defending troop-defined uniforms consisting of a shirt, or defending lame excuses for not wearing it for appropriate occasions, or general complaining about the BSA uniform, and such. The term is always directed toward those that promote uniform practices outlined in the Handbooks and other publications.

What is dishonorable is the Scoutmaster putting himself in the position of having only two choices: promote the boy the next rank without his having successfully served in a position of authority, or informing him he failed and denying him advancement. If boys are not making good choices, we have failed our Mission. There is no honor in that.

My son got a school assignment to create a science project. The lead time was 6 weeks. The teacher gave detailed instructions on how to proceed. The teacher was always available for help along the way if any student needed it. My son and I discussed the project and I gave some suggestions. A week later, he had not started. After 2 weeks he had made no progress. Should I sit on my hands and see how it plays out and after 6 weeks chide him for failing? Its his responsibility and his character. But I think as a parent I have some responsibility too if he fails. If he turns 18, flunks school and has no character, I suppose I could blame it all on him but the end result is we have another member of society starting out with 2 strikes against him, and a father declaring Its not my fault. The Scoutmaster too has some responsibility for the success or failure of troop boys in positions of responsibility. I consider it irresponsible for the SM to watch the calendar pages fly by while a boy fails.