GKlose

rismith: "My biggest problem with this situation is that the standard isn't being applied to everyone, it's being applied to this youth only." This is one aspect I'll have to think about. There are a couple of similar cases in our troop that would feed into this, but I also think that if I told those stories, we could have all kinds of tangents open up, and complications added. So in this particular case, this is the first time that Chris/CM and I/CC are running into this. It is a situation that started about a year ago, when the Scout first started to fill out his Eagle application. We have another Scout (who turns 18 in December) who has kind of been in this same circumstance. That situation is developing. There was a different agreement (with him, it wasn't about participation in outings, it was more about his PoR) put in place. We have three older Life Scouts, two of which have approved project plans in place (I could spin off another thread on one of those, which would make an interesting debate). The third is, I think, giving up. Haven't seen him in a few months. He'd make an interesting story too, but maybe I'll save that for after he turns 18. To my knowledge, we don't have any other Scouts in the pipeline where we see participation issues. Offhand, and this would be a metric that it would take some time to pull together, I think we could figure out if every First Class and above Scout had at least one six-month period where he attended at least 3 outings (we've been pretty much offering at least 8 outings in every six month period). For all of the Eagle candidates mentioned above, would we find 3 outings in a six-month period, while being a Life Scout? Yes, we would. I know all these guys and can easily say yes. But let me focus on one thing that Chris pointed out: this Scout has had exactly one overnight, and one day hike, with the troop in the last 3 years. For close to two of those years, we thought he had quit. I think the only other Scouts in the troop that dropped to that inactivity level in fact did quit. When he "came back to rejoin the troop" (because he told us, via email, that he was going to consider his future participation in the troop, and also consider joining another troop), he had a conference with Chris and they talked about his remaining work to earn Eagle. That's when the agreement was made. So I would argue that a "reasonable expectation" of participation was made at that moment. We haven't run into any case like this since. The way I feel about the comment that the standard isn't being applied to everyone is that I feel we have insufficient data. We're not deep enough into it. Are we setting a precedent? I'm not sure -- but I am hoping that we will be learning something from this situation, and can prevent it from happening again. Would this be a good time to reiterate that I really do value all of these varying inputs? I am doing a constant gut check here, and I can thank all of you for helping. Guy

Eagle732 -- thanks -- this really hits home: GET Eagle. BE an Eagle. EARN Eagle. Thank you for helping me have a moment of clarity :-). Guy

End-around, or sounding board? My gut feel is that the Scout and dad might be thinking the first, and I have no intention of being anything but the second. PS: so am I a meddlesome committee member? You bet -- I am heavily invested in what has been a 3-year process to rebuild a troop. We've kind of broken down the workload as program (SM) and administrative (CC). I'm thriving in that role. I can't always make monthly outings, but Chris loves the outdoors. I recall him only missing one out of the last 30 outings or so, and that was because of an out of town funeral popped up. Chris hates paperwork, and a search of my posts would reveal a past complaint about my biggest time-waster (collecting applications). After that is solved, my biggest time waster will be collecting medical forms for summer camp! Then I'll move on to the next biggest one. So Advancement -- program or administrative? I'm afraid a little of both. Is there a line cast in jello in there where the program aspect and the administrative aspect of an Eagle application kind of wiggle together. Have I blasted through the jello? :-) If I did, it wasn't because of a power grab. Closer to a misunderstanding, because this is my first Eagle candidate as a CC, and it hasn't been an easy one. I've been a bystander to the happenings for over a year. Thanks all -- I really do enjoy reading the differing opinions. Guy

Hey! Can I have a say in this? :-) I am taking da Beav's advice to heart in this, and I have re-read his two most pertinent posts several times. And I'll read them again. And it will certainly help me going forward, especially for cases of getting too deeply involved. But Beav's posts have also put me in a difficult position (granted, self-inflicted). For the present circumstance, I can drop out of the (now scheduled) meeting with Scout and the Dad, and disappoint the family. I can't judge their true emotion via the email that has gone back and forth, but let's all assume there are various emotions involved like angry and confused. Will dropping out make things worse (for them)? Or I can still meet with them, and disappoint da Beav. That's tricky too. He's a long time forum member, has excellent advice, and is gracious in offering his counsel in this matter. I have welcomed all input in the matter at hand, and for those who have followed, recommendations have been all over the map. I expected that :-). Beavah is also concerned about two things in particular -- that the Scout and his dad do not get a mixed message from the SM and the CC, and that the SM and CC are on the same page. Chris/SM lives very close to me, and we see each other often. We have bonded over rebuilding a troop together, and there has never been any kind of a dispute between the two of us. We trade email often, although I think he'd prefer to see a little less from me :-). My method, though, is to send things when they pop into my head (or else I will forget them). On my end, it doesn't bother me a bit that he only responds to the occasional note -- at some future point, we'll resolve the matter. In this matter, I completely understand Chris' point of view, and I support it. I am not giving the "good cop - bad cop" (or, what I call the "mommy/daddy") business to the Scout in question. I don't think I am fostering a mixed message. Perhaps I am, just by communicating with the Scout directly, and possibly meeting with him. In no way am I attempting to usurp the SM role, or try and use the CC role as a dominant role. It's not that I feel I must defend myself, but let me add just a little bit of explanation. I can't recall whether Chris was MC or AS, when he was Advancement Chair. But in that role, he provided a valuable service by tightening up standards on rank advancement. He moved on to SM, so a new Advancement Chair needed to be found. At the same time, the prior CC was stepping back from his role, and as an AS/MC Membership Chair (on paper, my registration changed back and forth a couple of times -- I'm trained in all roles), I started to assist with more of the administrative duties. Just after the CC's son completed his Eagle board, he announced that he'd be stepping down and that he was turning over the CC role to me. Once I became CC, and without an Advancement Chair, I started to run our troop BoRs. I do need to find an Advancement Chair, but my first priority was to find a Treasurer (done, last month). So that outlines our two roles -- SM and CC/interim Advancement Chair. We don't have an Eagle Advisor, but Chris has more or less fulfilled that role, since he is an Eagle himself. Before the weekend is out, I expect Chris and I will be talking, I'll figure out whether or not he thinks I've been stepping on his toes, and I'll apologize if necessary.

Newest information -- I was contacted via email this afternoon by the Scout. He asked to meet with me with his dad attending as an observer only. Beav, saw your previous note about stepping on the SM role. I understand. Now I feel awkward. I will be talking with Chris about what has gone on. After the Tuesday evening conference, the dad contacted me via email. Maybe he now views me as an intermediary. You're certainly right that I didn't do anything to discourage the impression, and it is not a position I should be in. I think what I will do is meet with him this time -- he'll probably tell me he really wants to be an Eagle Scout, and I can outline to him the three paths I think he could take: - live up to the agreement, get the signature - turn in the application without the signature, deal with the DAC/EBoR - stand pat, wait for a council/national appeal at a later time Guy

LisaBob -- just re-read your response from yesterday, with a clear(er) head. Wow. Bam. Direct hit :-). Thank you. Guy

Fred, I'm a whole lot closer to your point of view (and thank you for your analysis) than you might think. Chris would attest to this -- I don't move fast. I think about things, then make decisions, then take action. I'm not in a rush to judgement in this case. Let me clear about another point: at this time, I have not been asked for a signature, and I have not denied a signature. My hope is to try and guide the Scout through making a decision that will work for him. That's why I asked for his reflection on this matter, and why I wanted him to think about it for a couple of days. I think by Saturday or so, I'd be ready to talk with him. I think I want to make some notes too, to guide myself through what I want to say to him. Mr Hawkins, I'd also like to thank you -- you hit many nails on the head in your response. The one thing I would like to correct is the "Guy isn't satisfied with the Scout's performance" statement. It is really more of a case of I am encouraging the Scout to live up to his end of the Spring '12 agreement, as a first pass. Kind of like I would really like to give him a chance to do the right thing first. I guess that could be considered judgemental, but this is one that I can live with. I've never wanted to be the "gatekeeper" type, or be put into that position. I've always reacted negatively when I hear stories about Scouters who act that way. The type I want to be is the "yes, let's make that happen!" kind of Scouter. So am I seeing things wrong if I think of this as a case of an inactive Scout becoming active again, him saying "I want to be an Eagle", us saying "yes, let's make that happen!" and then him kind of just fizzling just a little bit...just...before...getting ... to ... ... and then us trying to give just a little bit of encouragement for those last few remaining steps? -- Just read LisaBob's response, before hitting "Submit". Duly noted. Yes, this does feel like it has degraded into a self-inflicted pissing match (about the 3 outings -- which is actually just two more). My wife sent me a note about 20 minutes ago that said "hey, the service project on 9/9, and then show up for an overnight on 9/15, after band practice, then he's done." But I responded to her that I don't think is what the candidate and his dad are thinking. I get the feeling they are posturing that they feel he has done enough, and will not be fulfilling any other requirements. In email to me, the dad had said "I am disappointed in the outcome of the Scoutmaster conference". What is the outcome of a conference? Two people have had a discussion. I wasn't really expecting any other kind of outcome. I think dad, and Scout, were expecting a fully-signed Eagle application. Thanks all -- we'll see what develops today -- I probably won't be back online until late tonight. Guy

Back after a little more sleep :-) -- "GKlose, I hope that one of the lessons learned is that in the future, when a scout is not seen for a period of time, he is contacted for a conference, and if he is not interested in actively participating, then his membership is not renewed." Venividi -- in some ways, we sort of do this. We have an annual registration fee that we collect just prior to the end of the year. Our recharter is usually complete by Jan 15. That is kind of like a touchpoint for most of our Scouts. If they are continuing in the troop, they pay the registration fee. If they aren't interested any more, that's usually when we get drop outs. For the ones that reregister, and still don't show up, we have Patrol Leaders making contact and giving encouragement. So the root of this thread, and the root of this "problem" -- we are shifting from an advancement-oriented troop (where frequently Scouts were "pencil-whipped" through requirements) to a much more active patrol-oriented troop. Chris, first as Advancement Chair, and now as Scoutmaster, has been something of a lightning rod for making this transition happen. So we've been transitioning from Scouts that were given free passes on many, many requirements to actually following requirements. Background: in the last three years (2010-2012) we've had 9 Eagles, and we currently have 3 that are in final stages of their applications (this one included). Most of the 9 had Eagle applications with the prior SM's signature, under the "old rules" (if you'll allow me to call them that). I can think of two that were pretty much extraordinary candidates (in another thread, I talked about sitting in on the EBoR for one of them). Seven were kind of flirting with not only their 18th birthdays, but also with that bare minimum line. If I were to explain some of those details, this thread could get really tedious :-). In some ways, this candidate is expecting treatment like the old guys got. But during the time he was largely absent is when we were going through the SM transition, and now the CC transition. We are definitely in a spot now that we are trying to set up equal treatment for all, meeting the requirements as written, with plenty of activity and support. Consider this particular case of when this candidate was active, it was under the "old regime", and this would be Chris' signature (the "new regime"). He has set a standard, so to speak.

One more thing before going back to sleep ... Like NJScouter, Lisa and da Beav have pointed out, there is at least five more months to go, so I don't really thing it is necessary to resort to the desperate measures of the appeals process at this very moment. In fact, after this reflection exercise I've asked the Scout to go through, I was going to identify at least 3 paths -- - living up to the agreement, getting the signatures - pushing for the EBoR this next month, without all of the required signatures (the District appeal, more or less) - not doing anything more, waiting out the time, and then filing the Council/National appeal and then point out positives and negatives of each. Then I'd ask him to perhaps think about those and then decide which path would be his preferred path (see -- I'm devious -- I'd be asking him to make an ethical/moral choice). Of course, on any of those paths I would support this Scout in any way that I can. I am not sure at the moment, but what I am afraid of is that in the last day or so, the Scout and his Dad have been pushing for an uncompromising position of "we will not be happy unless we get this signature now" so they can make the September deadline for a September BoR. That deadline would be the first Thursday, Sept 6, and so there is enough time, at the moment, for this reflection and discussion exercise. Guy

I should probably address some specific questions that have been out there, but my mind is pretty muddled at the moment. Calico -- Chris outlined the reason behind the request for three outings (at the time, it was posed as a request of attending half the outings over a six-month period, so at least three -- we had nine, but three would have made this a moot point). We could argue the "active rules" all sorts of different ways, but I am sorry, but I am more fixated on the agreement between SM and Scout, and the idea that one of them is arguing a position of not living up to that agreement. Oak -- I haven't been thinking about October 2009...from my point of view, the Scout "went dark" between August '09 and August '11. Chris adds other interim dates. In some ways, I view the interval as beginning again with the spring '12 PoR offer, and the agreement between Chris (SM) and the Scout. Another factual reference -- this incident started with a request related to an Eagle app. When I checked our Troopmaster data, I saw a PoR ending with the April '09 Life board, and no other PoR being held after that. So the PoR Troop Historian proffer in spring of this year? I can add details about that -- I just checked the email trail -- but please just suffice it for me to say that this Scout did what I feel is the bare minimum -- it appears the Scout made the agreement in late February and the next time I have contact from him is late May. Thanks -- I'll get to other questions later this morning :-). Guy

Thank you all -- I've been reading through the responses, and I really appreciate the time you've taken to read through the "bloviation" and help analyze the situation. I'd like to add just a few more comments. First, I would like to corroborate Chris' response. The email responses that he quoted were email that I was CC'd on, and his quotes are accurate. His additional facts are true, from what I have observed. I'm aware that this can go to appeal, and most likely win. I would like to avoid that situation. For reasons that I have not stated yet, I really do want this Scout to succeed, and not appear like the adult gatekeeper preventing him from an original goal. A couple incidents since the Tuesday evening conferernce -- I sent the Scout email with a link to the Guide To Advancement, and he responded, trying to work around some of the exception (to the "reasonable expectation" rule). I responded to that email, with a request for the Scout to take a couple of days, reflect on what he would really like to have happen, how he would like to earn Eagle, if this is the way he would like to earn Eagle, and if Eagle is really important to him. I told him that after that, I would have a conversation with him, by phone or in person (not by email), and would outline the different ways I could see this heading. In that conversation, I would of course outline the appeal steps, and then also tell him that is a direction I would prefer to not travel. A little later that same morning, I thought about his insistence that he'd be too busy this fall to attend any fall outings. My oldest is in the same marching band, and so I checked the band schedule -- I pointed out, in an email to the Scout, that by attending portions of some of those outings, that might be an easy solution. For example, leave a Saturday morning rehearsal, drive the half hour to where we're camping, and finish the rest of the outing (20 hours or so). The next step is that I receive email from the Scout's dad, asking for details about our decision at the conference, and what I would term "Scout Litigation" language, asking for corroboration on specific points of the troop's position of the Scout's inactivity. The Scout Dad said that he was disappointed by results of the Scoutmaster conference of the previous evening. I responded that I didn't really prefer to go down this "Scout Litigation" path at the moment (by the way, I know the timing of our district advancement committee -- if this Scout gets an application in by the first Thursday of September, he would probably be able to do the EBoR on the third Thursday of September). In some ways, this has the feel of them taking it to the last desperate measures, when in fact all possible avenues have not fully been explored yet. I also responded that I asked the Scout to take a few days and reflect, and then we would discuss options. I responded in private email to just the dad (and Chris is hearing this for the first time) that I am more sympathetic to their position than he knows. I was a Scout, and a high school band member, and I am not an Eagle Scout. I have been down exactly this path before, and that directly leads to my contention that I want to help make sure this Scout succeeds. In fact, I know deep down inside, he will succeed -- he doesn't really have to worry -- this is only a matter of choosing the method by which he will succeed. In that same private email to Scout Dad, I gave the BSA mission, which of course includes language about preparing young men to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime. I told him that we have a singular opportunity *at this very moment* to help this Scout learn something about himself, and that was what this program is all about. I asked him to allow us to follow this path for right now. Sent that at 9pm last night, and as of 2am, right now, there has been no response to either message. The fact that I am writing this now at 2am should help you know that yes, I am losing sleep over this :-). One more time -- I really appreciate all the thought all of you have put into this, and the time you've taken to crafting responses. I've read all of them, and will be reading them again and again. I have thought through multiple solutions, and I haven't really told anyone yet my personal feelings. Since I always love a good story, I will return the favor to you by promising to follow up as this situation develops. Guy

I'm spinning off from my own thread because of a situation we have developing. I am honestly interested in other opinions, so please let them fly. It is about one newest Eagle candidate. He's 17, turning 18 in late January. He recently completed his project, and had completed all other work. But it is his backstory that is a little troubling. His Life BoR was in April '09. Although I didn't witness it, I've been told that at that board he came across as bored and disinterested in the troop. At that point, he had been a patrol leader, but then again, at the time the troop was pretty much allowing do-nothing PoRs. I don't recall him showing up much after that, and he didn't attend summer camp in July. There was an August '09 5-day canoe trip that he went on. Over the next couple of years, I don't really recall seeing him at any meetings, except when he came to some specifically to talk to me about two merit badges I counsel. I would guess that this was 2 or 3 meetings. No outings, and that didn't surprise, given that I'd heard that he projected "bored and disinterested" at his Life BoR. The next time I heard from him, it was an email note in Aug '11, where it sounded like he was collecting date for an Eagle app (it was a question about the dates of the two merit badges I had signed off). I asked him about that, he confirmed it, and after I checked our Troopmaster records, I sent him a query about his PoR while a Life Scout. He told me that he felt that he had completed it, because it had been signed off in his book by the SPL. [more backstory: the troop had major problems with no-nothing PoRs, which included this particular SPL -- we rarely saw him the year he was SPL, but apparently sometime after the Life BoR in 4/09 and the canoe trip, 8/09, he signed off a PoR for this Scout for Eagle; meanwhile an Advancement Chair, now our SM, and I, now our CC, had been working on rebuilding the troop and working on actual fulfillment of PoRs] Anyway, a signed-off PoR in a handbook versus no knowledge that a PoR had ever been held. Things got messy from there, which I think I can skip over -- CC, dad, Advancement Chair, SM and I all got involved. Scout explored moving to another troop, and was sent back to us (a gentle suggestion that he should work out his problems with us rather than move). All that leads to sometime earlier this spring. The old Advancement Chair/new SM has a conference with the returning Scout. They come to an agreement of what the Scout should do in his remaining months. He needed to have an actual PoR, and an easy one (troop historian) that he could work on in his spare time was opened up, he was asked to participate in some troop meetings, and participate in 3 outings. He needed to finish something like 5 merit badges and a project. He was looking to have his application signed this week. So actively participating in the PoR hasn't been an issue, although as the recipient of his troop history information, he didn't really spend all that much time on it, and certainly there was no leadership involved. It was kind of bare minimum. His project was finished at the beginning of this month. He has shown up to some meetings, but it is the "3 outings" part where we've had an issue. He attended one day hike. No other outings. In fact, only one reported night of camping since Aug '09. The troop has had nine outings, since March, and a couple of service projects. The SM, through email, warned him a couple of months ago that he had agreed to attend some outings. The Scout's response was "I am aware of that." When he contacted us about signatures last week, the SM reminded him again about outings, and the Scout said "can't we come to some kind of compromise?". We set up a conference with the Scout, the SM and I last night. We reviewed the project workbook signed that off, then debated the application signatures. The Scout's position started with a hardcopy (that a family friend, an old district advancement guy had given him) which explained the old "active = registered" advancement policy. I pointed out to the Scout that the 2011 Guide To Advancement had clarified that a unit is able to set a "reasonable expectation" of participation. In email last night, when I sent him a link to the document, I stated that I thought that the "reasonable expectation" would correspond with the agreement that the SM and the Scout made, for him to attend at least 3 outings, only one of which he had. The Scout claimed that he had wanted to attend one outing that had been cancelled (it was an overnight with our Cub Scout Pack that was scuttled with a severe weather forecast) and that on at least two other outings, he had actually been traveling with his family. That leaves about seven outings he isn't talking about. The SM's position is pretty clear...the Scout had made an agreement, and didn't take advantage of any of the nine outings that had happened. He argues that if the Scout thinks Eagle is important enough, he would find a way to attend. The Scout's position is also pretty clear. He argues that he is busy, and that he had conflicts for outings. After I sent him the link to the Guide To Advancement, he read the section on "active" pretty thoroughly, and was working on an argument that justified his not participating on outings. So, as more background...one of his fall conflicts is HS marching band -- my oldest son is in the same band, so I know the schedule. I know that if this Scout wants to, he could probably make appearances at our fall outings (September, there is a Saturday 9am to 2pm rehearsal; October, there is a Sunday event; November, there is a Friday game, and a Sunday parade -- Saturday is open). I'm pretty sure what my next steps will be -- I'll outline some of those ideas after I hear what you'se guys have to say... By the way, the SM reads this forum, and may respond, especially to clear up any problems with what I've said :-). Thanks, Guy

Our troop was in need of some new tents a few years back -- I'd personally bought two Tetragon 5 (which are 2-man, 5x7 tents) and thought they had really great features for a cheap tent. So the troop bought some Tetragon 7 tents (3-man, 7x7). This last year, with an influx of new Scouts, we needed more tents rather quickly, so we got some more Tetragon 7s. Now those are the only ones we use, although some Scouts still prefer their personal tents. I like them a lot. We do camp the full year, in the northeast, and we've noticed that the fiberglass poles take a beating. I've had to replace some on my own Tetragon 5, and the older Tetragon 7s need some new ones too. I'd love to find a source that had some exact-fit DAC poles, which would lighten the tents a little, and might work a little better than fiberglass in winter. Guy

Circa late 70s, my troop went to Ely, long before it was known as the "Northern Tier" high adventure base, and then canoed in Manitoba, what I now this is probably the Boundary Waters area. I was just a lazy teen, and this one time the lethargy won out (honestly, I went on every other single trip, including Philmont the prior year and Maine National High Adventure the year after!). Sure, the guys came home with stories that I would have hated it, that they were climbing through muck the entire time. And I believed them -- until later on. When it dawned on me that I MISSED IT! Then the year after I aged out, Seabase opened up. I would have been all over that, but I MISSED IT! But that's okay, I'm a Scouter now -- Seabase 2014 or bust! Guy

I'm thinking about spinning this into a thread on the advancement forum, just to see a wide variety of opinions. Kind of like due diligence :-).

Barry, we met with the Scout last night. Here is what the justification hinges upon: the present Guide To Advancement has added further clarification to the question of whether or not a Scout is considered active. It says that a troop, in fact, can set a "reasonable expectation" of participation. [side note: the Scout came to the meeting with a hardcopy provided by an old family friend, who used to be on the district advancement committee -- the hardcopy was based on the prior clarification of "active", the one that was derided in this forum and others as being "active = registered". I cooled that debate by saying that the newest Guide to Advancement has further clarified the question.] So even though the concept of reasonable expectation is nebulous, and the troop does not have any sort of attendance metric in place, I am pointing back to this: when the Scout returned to the troop after the extended layoff, he talked with the SM and they agreed upon a couple of things. One was that we would clear a PoR for him (troop historian) and that we had certain minimal goals for him to accomplish, that he would be seen at meetings, and that he would attend at least 3 outings. So rather than debate whether those are reasonable expectations or not, I would prefer to think of it that both parties felt this was a compromise solution, and they both agreed to it at the time. That, to me, kind of says that it was a reasonable expectation. Since that agreement, I think a little over six months ago, our troop has had 9 outings. Offhand, I don't know if the one day hike he did go on was included in those 9 outings. The Scout's position is that he puts family and school before Scouts, and that he had conflicts. He says that he was planning on attending one outing that was cancelled (I don't know if this was included in the 9 or not, but we had planned an overnight with our Cub Scout pack, all of whom dropped out at the last minute after a forecast of severe weather). One of our weekend hiking trips, this Scout was hiking with his family, in another part of the same range of mountains. One of our two weeks at summer camp, he was traveling with his family. That still leaves at least six outings. He has only been missing two promised outings (one of which he could have done this last weekend, unless I'm mistaken). The SM has an interesting viewpoint -- so let me turn this around as a question -- say you have a Life Scout that has attended one overnight in the three prior years to filling out his Eagle application. Would you sign? -- by the way, I'm not really trying to debate here -- I'm really interested in hearing how others would approach this -- Thanks, Guy

This summer, in addition to our regular week at an adjacent council's patrol-oriented summer camp, we did a week at a Canadian Scout camp just north of Montreal (Tamaracouta Scout Reserve). We dropped the price considerably by cooking on our own mostly, and using their dining hall for just 3 meals. Last summer, we went to two summer camps and had a 5-day "high adventure" canoe trip in Maine (the West Branch of the Penobscot River, and Chesuncook -- I call it "high adventure" because it is just a flatwater trip, there's not that much challenge -- but this is as remote as our Scouts have ever been). Our plan is to continue doing summer camp in early July and then having some kind of a special trip in August. Next summer, even though a small handful of Scouts will be going to the Jamboree, we're looking for another canoe trip for August. Guy

Fred -- I understand your point. There is a whole story that goes along with the point I was trying to make. It started with telling youth, at their Boards, that they were done getting freebies, and that they'd be expected to actually fulfill a PoR to earn the next rank. Went through pretty much a whole cycle of Star and Life Scouts with that (the ones who were advancing). The next touchpoint was a statement at a committee meeting. The advancement chair made the statement that we'd pretty much gone through the cycle of those advancing and that we were approaching the first candidate who was coming up for a board. So at this point, a Board had not been withheld, or no surprise had been sprung on a Scout at a Board. It was more of a question of here is the situation we are facing. What happened is that we had a very irate dad shouting at us, upset that his son was being singled out. Turns out that his level of upset was because of a misunderstanding by him. We were only doing Courts of Honor two or three times a year, and he thought that if his son had missed a Board at the next meeting, then he wouldn't be able to become Life before the next Court the following year, and that he'd still be on track to earn Eagle prior to turning 18. The situation was cleared up a week later, with an explanation and a troop policy change. The explanation was that ranks are earned as of the Board (not the Court), and the policy change was to award the physical badge right after the Board (then recognition is received at the next Court, whenever that is). That's what we do now -- I chair our Boards, and I let the SM know immediately after that the Board is done, and then at the close of the same meeting, the badge is awarded. All problems disappeared. We had a stickier situation though -- let me describe it. We had a Scout that earned Life in April '09. He had one of the do-nothing PoRs at the time. His next outing was August '09. We saw him exactly twice in the next two years (up to August '11), when he was meeting MB counselors at our troop meeting. Last August he sent me a question, via email, which led me to believe that he was starting to fill out an Eagle application. I suggested that he needed to contact the Advancement Chair about this, because we didn't have any record of him being around the troop, or having fulfilled a PoR in the time since April '09. He responded to me (not the Advancement Chair) that the prior SPL (who had pretty much been a no-show himself from September '09 onward) had signed off a PoR in his handbook, therefore he felt that he had completed one. I repeated my suggestion that he contact the Advancement Chair, and told him that we would want the details of the PoR that he had allegedly fulfilled. The email trail exploded from that point. It started with the Scout sending email to the Advancement Chair that he'd like to meet and reconcile the troop records with what was signed off in his handbook. The Advancement Chair is pretty much a direct guy, and responded with a note that listed everything that the Scout had not finished yet, for Eagle. I was CC'd on it, along with the dad, and the Committee Chair. Dad exploded. Lots of stuff happened, including contacting another troop, looking to transfer. The Scout came back to us, after he learned that the other troop was going to expect him to fulfill a PoR there too, and participate in outings (that troop has an actual attendance standard, which we don't have). A compromise deal was worked out, where he would finish his remaining merit badges, work on the project (he had very little troop help, since very few of our Scouts knew him), fulfill a minor PoR (troop historian) and attend at least 3 outings (if you don't recall, his only outing, as a Life Scout, was August '09 -- we pretty much did not see him again until September '11). We have seen the time slip away in the last year. Minimal effort on the PoR, but at least it was effort. One outing -- he came on a day hike. He's finished all badges and his project. He contacted us last week, looking for a SM conference. The SM (who was the Advancement Chair a year ago) reminded him of the 3 outings. The Scout responded, via email, "can we work out a compromise?" The SM responded "I thought 3 outings was the compromise?" and they made plans to meet tonight. By the way, I'm the CC now. At this point, I don't think we're really talking about active/inactive...it is more of a question that he made an agreement to attend at least 3 outings, a year ago (and we've had about 15 outings since then), and he's only attended one. Overall, I'm disappointed in the position we are in. But I don't think this is the committee -- I think we've run into an Eagle candidate that is pretty much offering bare minimum effort. The SM and I talked about it last week -- his inclination is to hold the Scout to the two more outings that he originally agreed to, and then if the Scout wants to approach the appeal with National, he is free to do so. Guy

Thanks qwazse -- that makes a lot of sense. Guy

Thanks, everyone -- I appreciate it. I just thought of one of the negative aspects that has been going on. Service projects. In my mind, I think there are three cornerstones to an active program: (monthly) outdoor activities, service projects and conservation projects. We do schedule about six service projects a year, but participation is limited. Sometimes 4 to 6 Scouts, on rare occasion, we'll get as many as 12. Part of that was the "old guard", who kept billing them as "get your service hours in" for each project. Well, with that kind of mindset, no wonder attendance was so sparse. We've decided to scrap a couple of the projects -- not because they aren't worthy (my family, for example, will probably still volunteer at them) but because attendance was just down to the same sets of people, year after year. We did have seven or so Eagle projects this last year (in addition to the six scheduled service projects), and two more Eagle projects this summer, with one or two more to start up this fall. I suppose it could be argued that the Eagle projects were draining "labor", but I don't really think that was true. They would typically get about 4 to 6 Scouts volunteering, depending upon the project leader's popularity. Interesting note -- we did have a couple of Eagle candidates that found it difficult to get volunteers from within the troop. They didn't really put it together that since they hadn't been all that active, none of the younger Scouts really didn't know them, and didn't volunteer for their projects. Older Scouts, some who were already Eagles, have kind of moved on. Funny how that works, huh? :-) By the way -- another side note. When I first joined the troop committee, and noticed the issues, I didn't just jump in and start suggesting changes. In fact, I first volunteered to be membership chair. It just seemed natural to put together a membership plan. I started out by making a list of every single aspect I could think of that would somehow affect or improve membership growth. The list included many things like improving our image with the C.O. (and getting publicity in the C.O. newsletter), improving visibility in the community (service projects) and improving communication with our "feeder pack" and other Cub Scout packs in town. It was just a couple of pages, and I couldn't institute all of the changes myself, and not all of them have been instituted yet. But at least there was a plan. Some of the activities in the plan (prospective parents' meeting, an overnight with the Webelos Den, etc) are still very important for us. Guy

Through various responses to posts over the last couple of years, I've hinted at and danced around fully describing a situation -- when my older son joined a troop, it became really clear, very quickly, that the troop was in need of assistance. It was an adult-led, advancement-oriented troop with only passing mention of patrol method (the SM said "we're working on that", but it was getting no closer as the months went on). After awhile, it became pretty clear that he was the dominant player (the troop committee wouldn't do anything without his approval) and that he was content at being the World's Oldest Senior Patrol Leader. Patrols were non-functional, and most PoRs were do-nothing jobs. Scouts who didn't even show up to meetings were given credit for fulfilling PoRs, just because they had a title. Two things stuck out to me: the first was that the only reason why Scouts were going to summer camp was for merit badges. They'd go one or two summers with the troop, and then go one or two summers to "Eagle Week" (provisional troops, focus on Eagle-required merit badges) and then after that, they would be done with summer camp. They'd forgotten how to have fun at summer camp. There was no need to go to summer camp, because summer camp was about getting merit badges and if you already had enough, why bother going? The second was that outings were haphazard. They might get cancelled at the last minute from lack of participation, no details would come out until the week before, and most Scouts and families would not commit to attending, because they were unsure if an outing would happen or not. My older son's first year in the troop -- there were exactly six nights of camping, in addition to five nights at summer camp. That was it. There didn't seem to be any call for more camping, because most Scouts in the troop didn't need to, for advancement reasons. Most advice that I read (on this forum, Ask Andy, and other places) said that it wouldn't be worth the effort to try and fix it. I guess I'm hard-headed enough to think that I could help change it. As I've always said, I couldn't do it alone -- another WDL/crossover dad, an Eagle Scout (and he's on this forum) thought the same thing, and we were able to team up and facilitate changes. It also helped that the "old guard" were ready to cede control of the troop, as their sons got closer and closer to Eagle. By the way, this WDL/crossover dad is our new SM, and I am now the CC of the troop. Of course, it wasn't easy to do, and there were issues along the way. One of them I summarize this way: it is near-impossible to improve standards in a troop without actually improving standards. I say this because there were some dads that took exception to their sons being delayed advancement until they actually put some effort into a PoR. One of them started shouting at a committee meeting, because he felt his son was being singled out. Wasn't really true -- it's just that his son was the first case (BoR) coming up after all older Scouts had been told at their prior BoRs that they'd had their free pass and that they'd be expected to actually function in a PoR. So, in no particular order, here are some of the steps we took in order to rebuild the troop: - set an outing schedule, and stuck to it -- a fixed weekend every month, no cancellations - we prevented a couple of older Scouts from running for SPL, because we knew that they wouldn't be participating -- they were part of the "old guard" that looked for credit when doing nothing; that left us with one viable candidate who we knew could be coached into running things properly - rebuilt the PLC, and gave them actual responsibility for planning the annual schedule and planning monthly outings; we let them fail (case in point: one Scout, responsible for planning an outing, just looked up a campground online; he didn't read the fine print or call; when the troop arrived after dark on a Friday evening, they found that the campground was closed for the winter; all ended up well when another nearby campground was actually open -- in another case, our PLC set a June outing for camping on a Boston Harbor Island, but I knew from reading the fine print online that it wouldn't be open as early as our normal outing weekend; when they finally got around to figuring that out, they attempted to move to a later weekend, only to find that it was already booked). - we set expectations that our PLs would actually attempt to function as PLs during their tenure, and we held them to it at BoR time; at least two were delayed advancement, and extra effort was put into coaching them - we set up weekend PL training, and we said it was mandatory to attend (or to attend a PL training session at the annual University of Scouting) if they wanted to hold an SPL/PL PoR. That was how we prevented the two older Scouts from running for SPL. - at the weekend PL training session (and credit given to Kudu, Bryan Spellman and Bill Nelson for their resources for setting up this training), we did back to the basics. We didn't stick solely with the base TLT or JLT materials, but we went all the way back to "how to" sessions: how to plan a troop meeting, how to plan an outing, how to set up an annual program calendar, etc. - we sent two Scouts to Brownsea 22 training (this isn't NYLT -- this is the old "All Out For Scouting" era curriculum that our council still uses); we sent another this year, and hope to send at least two every year from here on out. - we started attending a patrol-oriented summer camp (we're lucky in that it is nearby); the first year, only six Scouts attended (others didn't go because they couldn't get piles of merit badges), the second year, eight attended. This last month, 15 attended. We're on a good path. During the same time period, fewer of our Scouts have attended the local council's "Eagle Week". I would just like that program to die. - one of my tasks has been to concentrate on talking to prospective troop parents and to new troop parents, with many of the ideas I've gleaned from this forum. I try and be extra clear what our goals are (this last year, I started specifically saying "it isn't our job to turn your son into an Eagle Scout; it is our job to put together an active and vibrant program where advancement happens naturally, and your son can turn himself into an Eagle Scout"). I'd been getting too many parent questions like "how soon can my son become an Eagle Scout?". We still have plenty of progress to make in terms of instituting patrol method and rebuilding patrol functionality. Part of this has to do with an old car-camping culture in the troop. Most outings are at campgrounds where everyone is bunched together. We were at a summer camp in Quebec just a couple of weeks ago, with mixed age patrols, cooking on their own. I noticed that with a common fire ring, we still have older Scouts gravitating towards older Scouts, and younger ones gravitating towards younger ones. We really do need to get them spread apart. That means we need to find some new camping spots. By the way -- the collateral effects of rebuilding the troop? A couple of years ago, we were 24 Scouts and dropping. I personally thought the troop was doomed, that once our older Scouts aged out (this year and next) that we'd be down to 8 or so, and that we'd really be fighting. Part of that is because of a "super troop" in town that is now up to 65+ Scouts. They do really well at recruiting. But a strange thing happened -- once we started building an active program, with good future plans (for example, we're looking at a 5-year high adventure plan), our recruiting has picked up. As of today, I think we're at 39 Scouts (and we're kind of at our equipment limits at the moment). Outings have gone from 6 to 8 participating, to 24 or so on every outing. As others have mentioned, communication with parents is the key. I still get calls asking "what does Fred need to bring to this outing?". This last spring, at the new parent's meeting, I said, "every time you call me with a question, you are depriving a patrol leader a chance to practice his communications skills." :-) Guy

I had to look it up -- I'd say someone has a sense of humor, LeCastor :-).

Hi Matt -- what Stosh said. And then some. I have no idea how unique this camp is, but the camp we go to includes a patrol-oriented program. Patrols sign up for activities, on a day by day basis (advancement in not emphasized, but it is still possible in this camp). For example, a little over a month ago, we had two patrols in camp, and they signed up for these daily activities: Patrol A: water skiing and tubing; horsemanship; climbing barn; sailing; snorkeling and kayaking. Patrol B: "Mountain Man" (tomahawks, action archery, black powder rifle), swimming, climbing barn, metalworking, and the "Extreme Obstacle Course". The way this camp works is that you're in a program area an entire day, with a staff member or two, and you have lunch there with them (lunches are provided in the morning, and are carried to the program area. At some program areas, the activity may lead to partial merit badge completion, if your patrol desires (examples: horsemanship, climbing barn, sailing, swimming). In our case, the older patrol (A) mostly already had Climbing Merit Badge, so they were up and climbing after a brief safety refresher. The one Scout that needed to complete Climbing MB was easily able to do so. With Sailing MB, about half of them already had it, several others were able to get a good start. With our younger patrol (B), most were able to easily pass the BSA swimmer's test, so they caught up on all the rank advancement swimming requirements, and then proceed on to Swimming MB requirements. I didn't think that they'd move so quickly, so I didn't have them bring clothing (long-sleeved shirt, long pants) for the floatation requirement. Otherwise, I think most of them might have completed the merit badge. The younger patrol also did the "Extreme Obstacle Course" -- consider that kind of like a low COPE course, with team-building games, and then running the obstacle course a couple of times, as a group (things like scaling the wall needed group effort). The camp pushes patrol "outposts", although our guys have not taken advantage of them yet. They also could have chosen days to go off and climb on real rock (if they do the climbing barn first), go on a remote hike, etc. The "reservation" also offers a high adventure program (away from the camp) and also their "spokes" program (high adventure, but using the camp as a base camp, heading out to different places for hiking, backpacking, kayaking, canoeing). But program isn't the only part -- they have patrol competitions all week, including wide games for evening program. They have an Older Scout Night, where older Scouts could go off to have a separate game, campfire and snackage with older Scouts from an adjacent camp. Our guys turned it down, because the entire patrol didn't meet the criteria. In past years, they emphasized patrol-based training, and patrol leader training as well, in special programs. They didn't do that so much this year, I think because much of the staff had turned over. So I'm a big proponent of this camp -- it is in central NH, just a little south of Alton (which is on Lake Winnipesaukee). Daniel Webster Council. If you go to nhscouting.org, choose the "camping" link for "Griswold Scout Reservation" and then "Camp Bell", and then "Forms", you can download their leader's guide. It fully describes the program. Like I said, I have no idea if this camp is unique, but it is my favorite camp out of the six I've visited. Harkening back to Stosh's comments: out of the six I've visited, five of them have a dining hall. This one, Camp Bell, doesn't have one. :-) Guy

Thanks, Kudu -- understood. Guy

By the way -- I agree, 100%, with everyone else that has posted. Communication was a key. I got to the point that I have been addressing prospective parents and new parents and talking with them about the troop philosophy. The last time I did this (April, after crossovers), I was the most direct I've ever been. At one point, I said something along the lines of "for parents, it is sometimes frustrating to see a troop that looks a little disorganized; but every time that you contact an adult leader with a question about your son, or an outing, or whatever, you're depriving a young leader in our troop a chance to work on his communication and leadership skills." So I asked them to be patient and let the system work. That went over so well, I'm planning on keeping it in my "newbies" talk. :-) Guy