FScouter

Selecting and recruiting is not easy. Youve probably tried some approaches that were not exactly successful. You really dont want just any old body for the job. Any-old-body is almost always doomed to fail right from the start, causing damage along the way, and then you must start over. You want someone that will be effective from the beginning. To get the right person you must know what you want, identify candidates (more than one) that have the right characteristics to be successful, and then SELECT the best candidate. Then you must give them the resources and training they need to be successful. A suggestion: get a copy of the BSA booklet Selecting District People #34512E. Also, Commissioner Administration of Unit Service # 34128D has a chapter on recruiting commissioners. Both are available at the Scout Shop or through National Supply Division, 800 number in the front of the catalog.

Explain. What is a "UP"?

Pray, tell us more about what you're refering to as a new BSA policy, "Scouting's Gray Areas". Is there a pub number? Yes, some skits dredge the bottom. There are a million + 1 skits out there and new ones being invented every day, so there's really no point in presenting depictions of bodily functions etc. as humor.

I will make a specific effort to find the Official BSA backup to PROVE that they can use them You will not find anything in any BSA publication that says boys are permitted to use power tools. Publications cover things you must do, and things you must not do. Things that are OK are not listed. Suppose I tell you boys are not allowed to chew gum while hiking. Will you be able to find written proof that gum chewing it allowed?? There is nothing in the Eagle application nor the workbook that restricts the use of tools. http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/eagleproject/18-927D.pdf A local council may or may not have a restriction. But talk is cheap. If its important enough to have a rule about, then its important enough to write down and disseminate.

What bell? Did someone ring a bell?

The truth may always be found in the written BSA publications and the BSA website. Other internet web sites may or may not be true and frequently reflect the personal opinions of the site author (the inquiry site for example). "Rules" heard in conversations around the campfire may or may not be true. Ask for the particular BSA publication where the rule may be found and look it up yourself. If you can't find it, that's your first clue as to the validity of the "rule".

"My fear is of unethical precedents, because then everyone expects the same unethical consideration." Thats my point. We fear more about what other people may think than what is right. A bad decision made in one case in no way obligates bad decisions in the future simply because the first bad decision set a precedent. If a poor decision is made the first time, there is no obligation to make a poor decision a second time simply because we want to be fair. Ignore precedent; a worthy project gets help, a poorly planned project does not. Fair is when decisions are made on the merits of each case, based on the same criteria.

Registering an appeal through the district ought to be a last resort. Doing so is sure to create even more animosity in your unit. Decisions of a board of review must be unanimous, so why is one of the board members backing an appeal? Before you appeal, try following the process described in the Advancement Committee book #33088D. Paraphrasing: If the board decides that the Scout is not ready to advance, the candidate should be told exactly what he has not done satisfactorily. They must come to agreement with the Scout at the time of the board of review what he must do to correct his deficiencies, and follow up with a written letter. They must also schedule another review.

Several comments have been made about setting a precedent. Without commenting directly on whether the troop should or should not help pay for an Eagle project, Im more alarmed at the idea that the presence or absence of a precedent should have any influence at all on a decision. Good decisions are made based on the facts and the merits of the case at hand. Making a decision in the future based on following a precedent set now is like making no decision at all, a shirking of responsibility to decide a question based on its merits. If our mission is to help young people make ethical choices over their lifetimes, how can we do that if as adults we make decisions based on a past precedent, or the fear of setting a new one?

It seems John has a loose end remaining from his project. If he is not going to pocket the money, then what is his plan?

Would someone care to look this up in the Cub Scout Leader book and let us know what it says about adult partners and shared leadership?

This is a no-brainer. There simply is no place in Scouting for a registered sex offender. What parent in his right mind would want his child in a program where the leadership would accept a registered sex offender in the midst of a group of kids?? We dont need to evaluate the circumstances, investigate the specific dirty deed(s), or walk in his shoes. The judicial system has determined him to be convicted of a sex crime. Who are we to second guess a judge and jury and decide that he might still be OK to participate in Scouting!? No sex offender, dad or not, has any rights to participate in Scouting. Frankly, Im stunned that the adult leadership in the den, pack, or chartered organization would permit his presence for even one day after being discovered. Obviously this unit has not followed BSA rules or this sex offender dad would not be participating. The rules, which may be found in the Cub Scout Leader Book, and elsewhere, are: Every Tiger Cub must have an adult partner. Both the boy and the adult partner must be registered members. All adult leader applications must be approved by the chartered organization. That approval process ought to include calling the 3 personal references listed on the application. The chartered organization is not obligated to accept any application. Once the application is approved locally it is forwarded to the council, where the applicants information will be submitted for a background check, which will reveal the dads sex offender status and will result in his application being rejected. The council will then inform the unit that the dad may not be a part of the program. If the dad wants his boy in Scouting, he can arrange for a different adult partner. The mom would be an obvious choice, but a brother, relative, or any adult over age 18 may be the adult partner.

I'll bet your subscription is not paid up.

"The DE has no authority in the BSA structure to make that decision. That's a decision that is the sole purview of the advancement committees (i.e. volunteers) as it is a policy/mission decision." That's not true at all. BSA owns the BSA program. BSA charters local community groups to use the BSA program. The chartered organization agrees to use the program within the policies of BSA. And the policy of BSA is that units may not add rank requirements. It is not good for boys or the local community or Scouting when a volunteer takes it upon himself to mess with the BSA program and thumb his nose at BSA. Who is a parent going to have more faith in: a proven BSA program, or a volunteer with an attitude that "I know better"?

"Where is your WRITTEN procedure for what to do during thunderstroms?" Hmmm... that would be found, written, in the Guide to Safe Scouting, under the heading "Lightning Safety Rules". Was there a violation??

"So much of the time adults get into rules because it's all about control, when it should be about service." Have to agree with that statement. Here we have a Scoutmaster and/or committee that has refused to advance a boy despite that fact that he has already logged 30 hours of service, when only 6 hours is required. The boy's advancement has been delayed by several weeks while he complies with their additional requirement. That sounds a whole lot more about adult manipulation and control than it does about service. The sad thing is that, as Barry and others pointed out, the troop could very easily find ways to develop leadership in boys other than blocking advancement by imposing an additional advancement requirement that BSA has clearly stated may not be done. Troops all over the country turn out boys with good character and good leadership skills, and they don't need to resort to these tactics to do it.

John, you quoted some good stuff from the G2SS but forgot to quote the verbiage about mandatory 1:1 ratio.

"For issue (2), the difference between "wink wink" and full compliance is simply full disclosure. If participants know that they are assuming their own risk, including liability, just like they would if they went by themselves, then you are not skirting anything." I'd disagree with that. A unit and it's leaders cannot abdicate responsibility simply by declaring "we're not responsible, it's a parent thing (wink, wink, nudge nudge)". When push comes to shove and a non-swimmer boy with no PFD drowns when the leaky over-loaded boat capsizes on the class 5 rapids, does anyone really think the jury is going to relieve the adult troop leaders of blame just because they declared "quack, we're not a duck, quack, quack, it's a parent thing, quack, quack, (wink, wink)". Does anyone really believe BSA will defend these leaders?

Boards of review are staffed by troop committee members. Every board of review should have a lead person or chairman for that particular board. That would be the person to sign the advancement form. The title would be that persons regular committee position, or just committee member. The chairman of a board of review does not have to be the troop committee advancement person. One of the responsibilities of the committee advancement person is to arrange for boards of review. That person would normally sit on the boards, would be the lead person, and would sign the advancement form. Any committee member may sit on a board of review. The Scoutmaster and assistant Scoutmasters may not participate, and should not be present during a board of review. The parent of a candidate should not be a member of the board. You might find the Troop Committee Guidebook to be of some help in understanding the role of the committee. Seven committee positions are described, with responsibilities for each position. There should be an advancement person. There could also be a board of review person if the advancement person wants to pass on that responsibility to another committee member. If all positions are not filled, the committee chair will still need to make sure that all responsibilities are being handled. A large troop may add more positions. Committee members complete an adult leader application and are formally registered through the council. Their names appear on the annual troop charter.

GSS says we're not supposed to travel in convoys, and refers to the Leadership Requirements for Trips & Outings, Point #2 for reference. Point #2 simply says that you need two deep leadership or one adult and two or more scouts to be safe Point #2 deals with transportation to and from outings, which is why the convoy section refers to this point for more info. Paraphrasing: A. Have a common departure spot. B. Have periodic checkpoint stops. C. Plan a daily destination point; and at least 2 youth and one adult per vehicle.

Barrys idea is good. The Scoutmaster could discuss and develop a plan with the Patrol Leaders Council to encourage boys to take leadership of troop service projects. This may meet the objectives of the adult leaders without imposing a rank requirement.

eh? Your baby talk style makes your posts difficult to read and understand. I have a lot of faith in the Scouting program. It is a proven system that works. BSA has teams comprised of volunteers from all over the country that have worked countless hours developing the BSA programs. Changes and updates are considered, discussed, and debugged for months. Then they're tested in real troops before being finalized and released. Over 90 some years BSA has a program that works. Frankly, I don't believe that any unit leader no matter how incredible he may be can invent methods that are any real improvement over what we already have. Imposing an additional troop requirement for advancement? How arrogant and pompous is that considering the BSA specifically says units may not do so?

http://www.scouting.org/awards/hornaday/ http://www.scouting.org/awards/hornaday/awards.html

As Gilski stated in his opening post, This was done in an effort to prepare Scouts for their Eagle Project. They are not able to have SMC or BOR until they accomplish this task. Although it builds strong character The achievements the boys earn as they advance through the ranks ought to fully prepare them for the challenges they will encounter in completing an Eagle project. Unless the boys have limited capabilities, they ought to be well prepared to tackle an Eagle project without first doing a Life leadership service project imposed as an additional hurdle. Or perhaps the adult leadership has been skimping on the program in earlier ranks, resulting in boys not prepared enough to tackle the requirements for the Eagle rank. If the purpose of the added requirement is to build character, one would have to ask why the troop program is not already building character. Using the methods of Scouting leads to growth in moral strength and character. The Scout program is well rounded and there are plenty of opportunities to learn and demonstrate leadership within the program. One of the Life requirements is to serve actively for at least six months in a position of responsibility. Are the boys failing to demonstrate leadership in their positions as Star Scouts and First Class Scouts? If not, the solution would seem to be to spend more time developing their leadership skills as First Class and Star Scouts, rather than adding an additional requirement for Life. Adding additional rank requirements is not necessary to build character in boys or to achieve the aims of Scouting. Correctly using the methods of Scouting results in achieving the aims of Scouting. Adding an additional requirement is almost an admission by the adult leaders that they are failing to build character and teach leadership and this is an attempt to fix that failure.

"The CC also uses the "parent/child activity" as a reason to not fill a tour permit for this." Quack, quack, quack. If it walks like a ... Nobody is fooled by that lame idea. Parents aren't fooled, nor are the attorneys they will hire to sue the troop, the council, and the Scout leaders involved if an accident occurs.