FScouter

Agreed, it is a pointless discussion. We all have our different opinions about points minor and major that do or do not add anything to the program. Call it tweaking, departing from the program, or whatever. One with a mind to change what he wants will define his change as a minor tweak, or maybe even an enhancement. He'll never say he has departed from the program.

The distinction is important. Call it a tweak, a variation, an adjustment, or whatever. The important point is whether or not the change can be supported in the BSA publications. BSA gives wide latitude. The publications spell it out. The limits seem clear enough. There should be no question that minor adjustments are fine as long as they are within the limits. The key is whether or not the adjustment can be supported in the BSA publications. If it cannot, its a departure from the program rather than an adjustment. I will call a tweak to be a change made beyond what is intended by BSA. A tweak cannot be supported at all in the publications. Its a departure from the program. Any adjustment that is supported in the written publications is not a tweak, its just a different way, a variation. Some things are hard and fast such as rank requirements. Others, like how often boards of review are scheduled are more flexible. Scheduling boards of review 3 times a year instead of 5 or 6 times is not a tweak. Eliminating boards of review is a tweak. Specifying the occasions when the uniform will be worn is not a tweak. Specifying that the uniform pants are not required is a tweak. Establishing guidelines for boy leader nominations is not a tweak. Boy leaders appointed by the SM or approved by the committee is a tweak. If in doubt, look to the publications for support. If support can't be found, theres a good reason.

Scouts earn their own way. Planning and running a spaghetti dinner helps build character in boys. A free handout teaches them nothing.

"It seems the fault should be placed on the district/council for not ensuring that they had trained and knowledgeable volunteers in key roles and failing to provide the resources needed to support them." Board of review info is easily found in the Scoutmaster Handbook, the Troop Committee Guidebook, and the Advancment Committee Policies and Procedures book. "(On a mostly unrelated note, I know of a unit where several leaders are changing their BSA registration at recharter in hopes of being able to serve on the BOR of a member of that unit.)" And the reason for that would either be to push through an unqualified boy, or to block his advancement? How sad they don't trust the existing board to do their job correctly.

"I think the tail is wagging the dog." I wonder if your district has a volunteer Program Chair, or a Camping and Outdoor Promotion chair, an Activities and Civic Service chair, Training chair, and Advancement chair? If there are no volunteers in place, it's no wonder the Program Preview was a little lacking in program. "Council" has nothing at all to do with that.

There is a form called the First Class - First Year Tracking Sheet #34118. Send me a PM and I'll e-mail it to you.

If your intent was truly to inform, you could have done so without taking a whack at a fellow forum member.

I find that decisions made by a person or group with authority are easier to carry out or abide by when the rationale is understood. If the reasoning is not obvious or not shared, one is left to speculate.

"With the permission of your Scoutmaster and your parent or guardian, your patrol may go on its own to camp, hike, and conduct special projects." - (page 20 of the Boy Scout Handbook) Get a tour permit; the patrol leader is the tour leader.

I would hate to see how little posting would take place if it were required to have perfect knowledge of the scenarios that start these threads. We only know what joeleeper posted. So that is what we respond to. Plus more response to the responses. Less than perfect knowledge Mr. Anarchist doesnt seem to suppress your opinions! So, Ill state again my personal interpretation of BSA advancement policies. - A board is wrong to re-test. There are ways to determine whether a boy has met the requirements other than to toss him a rope and tell him to tie a knot. The board needs to learn how to do their job without re-testing. - A board is doubly wrong to test a boy on his knowledge of things that are not covered in his Handbook, (such as ABCD), if failure to know the answer results in his failing the review. - A board is wrong to tell a boy he has failed, without also telling him exactly what was not done satisfactorily and what he needs to do to meet the advancement requirements. - A board is wrong to not schedule another review. It seems simple enough for the board members to agree on a date as part of their deliberations. If they are not prepared to set a date on the spot, they should at least call the boy the next day with a date. - A board is wrong if it fails to follow up its denial with a written letter. It doesnt have to say much; what was unsatisfactory, what the boy can do to fix it, and when his follow-up board of review is scheduled. If a boy has failed to meet the advancement requirements, then the board is obligated to withhold the rank. But they need to do it properly and in a positive manner such that the boy knows exactly where he went wrong, agrees with the decision, and knows what he needs to do to fix it.

The boy participated in a board of review. He walked away from it "very upset", because he "failed". The boy does not know specifically why he was not approved. The boy does not know what he needs to do next to get approved. The board retested him on tying a knot. The board retested him on CPR knowledge, including some reference to "ABCD". The board deliberated, then told the boy he was "not ready", and to "try again in a few weeks." The board re-tested, which is always improper. (There are other means to determine whether requirements have been met.) The board did not tell him WHAT was not done satisfactorily. The board did not schedule another review. The board did not follow up with a written letter. Bottom line, the board acted improperly, either out of ignorance, or from a misguided sense of authority. A board of review should be a positive experience for a boy, even if he needs to work on a few things and come back. It doesn't sound at all like the boy received his due.

Certainly a 1st Class Scout should know his stuff, and if he is properly prepared should have no trouble with a board of review. I hope you're not all saying that the boy joeleeper initially posted about should be denied? According to Joe, he was denied (apparently) because he did not know what "A,B,C,D" was relating to CPR, and because he failed to demonstrate to the board that he could tie a bowline around his waist. A Scout proficient in knots probably ought to be able to figure out how to tie a bowline in manner not taught his Handbook, but failure to do demonstrate this at a BOR hardly seems a valid reason to deny advancement. Can the boy tie a bowline as taught in the Handbook? We dont know. And what is "A,B,C,D". Do you all know what that is? If not, maybe your position as SM or SA should be suspended until you can give the correct answer?

The boy (or you) can respectfully ask the chairman of the BOR what page of the Boy Scout Handbook the boy can read about how to tie a bowline around the waist, and on what page can he learn about A,B,C,D. Then request the board reconvene in the next couple of days (BEFORE the court of honor) to review with the boy whether he did or did not meet the advancement requirements found in the Handbook.

Lifeguards do not need to be BSA or Red Cross certified, though BSA says it is "strongly recommended". Even though you want to do this at a city-run pool, you still must provide qualified supervision and follow all the eight points. Every unit that does swimming should have a copy of the BSA publication "Safe Swim Defense" #34370. It's a good reference and answers questions about the details of the eight points.

Packsaddle - If we're going to interpret that loosely, we may as well delete that part out of the Scout Oath, and revoke the declaration of religious principle. Semper, before you go there you'd better define ednosticism.

Agnosticism is more than a lack of knowledge about God. It is more of a belief that it is impossible to know anything about God. If an agnostic person finds it impossible to know anything about God, it seems impossible he would have any belief in God. How can one believe in something one declares it is impossible to know anything about? OGE, what we have here is a failure to understand.

I don't see that the references to a boy's patrol means the requirement is that the patrol must take a backpacking trip. Rather, in Boy Scouting, activities normally take place within a patrol. The MB book is just following the patrol theme that runs throughout Scouting. Boy Scouts do stuff as patrols.

That sounds reasonable enough to me. Now all the boy has to do is figure out what his duty to God (or higher being) is, and do it.

Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day If one believes it is impossible to know anything about God, then it follows that it is impossible to do ones duty to God. Id be interested to hear from an agnostic person exactly how he does his duty to God given the agnostic belief that it is impossible to know anything about God and what his duty is. These seem to be mutually exclusive concepts.

Are there really troops like this? (From an internal NPS website) Joshua Tree National Park (CA) PVC Potato Cannons Seized from Scout Troop On the morning of Saturday, October 29th, park employees received reports of a disturbance from visitors who were camping in the group campsites at Indian Cove Campground. Protection rangers responded. During the subsequent investigation, the rangers confiscated seven cannons constructed from PVC piping which were being used to shoot potatoes into the area of the campground through the use of a gas propellant. The cannons ranged in size from two to six feet in length and are defined as destructive devices under the California penal code. Other miscellaneous PVC piping, which was used for making the potato cannons, and three five-pound bags of potatoes were also confiscated. A local California Boy Scout troop occupied the site. The site permit holder was issued a violation notice for possession/use of weapons. The Scoutmaster and group leaders were given multiple verbal warnings for disorderly conduct, sanitation/refuse violations, food storage violations, and miscellaneous traffic offenses. [submitted by Judy Bartzatt, Chief Ranger] http://data2.itc.nps.gov/morningreport/morningreportold.cfm (November 10 edition)

A boy cannot "... do my duty to God ..." if he is agnostic about the existence of God. Scouts need to live the Scout Oath in their daily life.

SCOUTER-Terry provided an answer to this question when it was asked once before 2 1/2 years ago. www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=5143#id_5161

"I as a MBC will not sign a blue card as complete if a scout shows me one with all the requirements marked off by someone else." When I help with uniform inspection I ask the boy "Are you wearing Scout socks?" Usually the boy pulls up his pant legs to prove that he is indeed wearing his Scout socks. I respond by telling him "I didn't ask you to pull up your pant legs. I trust that you will give an honest answer without having to prove it". The message we give a boy by verifying MB requirements already completed and signed off is that we don't trust him, and we don't trust the counselor that signed the card. If we distrust our boys, we have failed in fulfilling our mission.

I find that term "kick out" to be inflammatory. I suppose those that use it do so for effect. A self-described "agnostic" boy thinks a requirement to say grace before a meal is forcing religion upon him. What to do? Listen to him, counsel him, give him other points of view, speak to his parents. Let him ponder the issue. In the end the boy will choose to live the Scout Oath and Law and stay with Scouting, or he will choose to leave. Either way, the choice is his alone. But choose he must. His choice will be an ethical one if it is in accordance with his beliefs. No coercion, no "kicking him out." His personal decision. The mission of this organization is to help boys make ethical choices. We just have to help them understand their choices cannot violate the oath they have agreed to live by. That would not be ethical.

Bears repeating "... our aim is to build character and encourage ethical and moral ideals, I feel we shouldn't allow semantics, wording, or punctuation to get in the way."