Stosh

Before accusing someone of dishonesty, one may wish to consider that one's own personal opinion isn't always the only honest way of doing things. I have reviewed this proposal and discussed it with the candidate. Long before the boy puts pen to paper I as SM have spent a lot of time with the scout going over a number of different possible Eagle projects for him to consider. I don't always know the boy well enough to understand what kind of project he is even interested in doing. I have projects of various difficulty for the boy to consider and he may wish to take an easy proposal because he is getting dangerously close to aging out or he may wish to take on a serious challenge for his project. Again, I have no idea what he may have in mind. So he gets a handful of proposals to consider. I believe it provides impact worthy of an Eagle Scout service project, I wouldn't offer up a proposal if I didn't think it was worthy of an Eagle Scout service project in the first place. and will involve planning, development, and leadership. Obviously how much planning, development, and leadership varies from one proposal to another, but it's not something that I would consider a walk in the park for the boy but there is going to be some degree of planning, development, and leadership that can be sufficient to meet the requirements of the rank advancement. I am comfortable the Scout understands what to do, and how to lead the effort. If a boy feels comfortable with handing me a proposal for signature, I'm comfortable he knows what he's doing. I will see that the project is monitored, and that adults or others present will not overshadow him. I do that with all boy-led activity in the troop, just because it's an Eagle project doesn't mean the rules for adults change. Other than signing, what's left for me to do? Check his spelling? Not my job. Check his grammar? Not my job. After all, why is he presenting it to me to be signed if I'm going to be doing all sorts of things before actually putting my John Hancock on the document? He wanted me to sign. I did. End of discussion. If the boy put together his proposal and presented it to me to be signed and I did not sign it, that would be dishonest. Whether I read it or not it makes no difference other than for me to exercise my control authority as an adult and keeper of the gate to Eagledom and that in my subjective judgment of his thoughts, his ideas, his effort, his logic, his passion, his interest doesn't make grade, then I don't sign it, make him do it over, correct his spelling and grammar and then come back when it meets MY STANDARDS, then I'll sign. If one is looking for dishonesty, I see dishonesty written all over that process. My process says to the boy, "This is your project proposal, I trust you to do it right, where do I sign?"

I like the idea of using the SM project for some of the boys who would find a full troop POR overwhelming regardless of their situation. It gives the boys a chance to try out the POR responsibilities on a patrol level on a short stint just so they can experience the situation. If the boys know it's only for a month or so, they can put their focus in on the job and the boys in the patrol know that if the boy is struggling, it's not going to be a problem for 6 months kind of a thing. It also gives more boys an opportunity to experience a variety of different POR's as well. ADD, Asperger, shy and such can get a taste of the POR to try out. If they like what they find in the POR they can then do it "for real" on the troop level when they are working on their Eagle. Some of the boys never figure it out, but I always fall back on 6 lessons as an Instructor for the Eagle level POR. They can teach when they are ready and the pressure to focus over 6 months time is removed and doesn't cause a hardship on the boy already busy with his Eagle project. I have even had boys spend time Instructing the boys on their project and that counts as one of the lessons he is to instruct. Whatever it takes to help the boy be successful is all I'm interested in and if that means being creative within the scope of the requirement, so be it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would be cautious about this whole issue of the clothing. There are a lot of specifics that probably not allow for such deductions. Clergy for example can deduct the liturgical robes and such worn during the performance of his duties in a worship service, but he cannot take a deduction for a black suit and clergy shirt that is worn in the general public. If that logic holds true, a scouter may be able to deduct O/A regalia if purchased, but not his full BSA uniform which can be worn in public. Need to check the fine points on that issue very carefully.

Welcome, hope you find what this forum has to offer something useful.

Since when is compliance within the rules gaming the system? It is also interesting that we are in a program to teach character and leadership and it is questioned when one stays within the rules and is accused of trying to get around them to create another program because they are themselves interpreting the rules in their own way.

In the medical form? Couldn't they find a more obscure place for it? One also needs to be aware that those permission slips, photo permission slips etc. do not constitute legal contracts and carry no weight in a legal suit. Allowing a scout to get into your car to go to an activity is as binding of a "contract" as signing a permission waiver. This is why BSA carries liability insurance.

As mentioned before, a patrol scribe is a special SM project for one month, a patrol QM for a month, a patrol Chaplain Aide for one month, etc. all adding up to the requisite number of months of POR. And if I read it correctly there is no time tenure needed for a SM project. So that takes care of Star and Life. Eagle, 6 month tenure as Instructor doing a once a month class for the younger boys. Discussion over. Give me the reference where www.bsahandbook.org is associated officially with BSA. Until then it's just yet another 3rd party interpretation of this discussion. As far as I can tell, they hold links to BSA websites, but nothing official indicating their source of origin. I'd be happy to entertain any references that clear this up.

Sounds like some serious instruction is in order for the adults of this adult controlled unit. I'm not even going to give them the benefit of the doubt and call them adult-led. These people are running an adult-controlled egofest.

Yep, that's what I've always thought.

It has always been my understanding as SM that I sign the project proposal that is to be sent to District/Council for consideration. Then when the project is done and the paperwork is completed, I sign the final document that gets turned in at the end. I NEVER read the project proposal. I only sign off on it. If District/Council thinks I have signed, meaning I am in compliance and agreement with the project, they have made a false assumption. My signature indicates that the boy has completed his project proposal and I am now in the loop of a project in process, nothing more, nothing less. It's always really fun to see what of the many suggestions one tosses out there for Eagle projects, which ones they pick. I usually find out when the project's first work day is announced. I did have one push-back from the Eagle committee wondering whether the project was significant enough to be an Eagle project. I asked if they had talked with the Scout. They said no and I suggested they start there. They never called back but finally approved the project and it went on the front page of the second section of the local paper.... and the front page of the second section of the state-wide paper. I guess it was significant enough to be an Eagle project after all.

Or, during the recruiting presentation one can constantly keep asking. "Can you see yourself pictured here some day?" The Imagination is a powerful tool, too!

If woods tools are not an age-appropriate activity for Webelos boys, why would anyone think it necessary to train them? Yes, an ax yard at a Webelos event is appropriate for adult use. No one under 18 allowed in the ax yard unless there is a visible Totin' Chit visibly displayed to anyone near the yard. Rule #1 Safety first. No exceptions, no excuses. Nothing to discuss.

If District or Council take pictures of my boys, I am assuming they have taken all the necessary releases, disclaimers, permissions necessary. If they haven't, it's not my problem. The less I know about these things, the less likely I'm going to need to testify somewhere down the road.

@@Eagledad My boys tried that approach a few years back with the non-uniform pants, too. I just reminded them that when we have flag opening and closing and we "salute" the flag, that the boys wearing incomplete uniforms use the "hand over the heart" salute of a civilian and those in full-uniform use the Scout salute to show their respect for our country and veterans who fought and died for the Flag. The subject was never brought up again.

One can have a ton of pictures for the Historian to use, They aren't available for the WebMaster. WebMaster gets the picture of the camp with no one in it, pictures of dutch ovens on the coals, picnic tables all laid out for dinner, bear bags hanging in the trees, canoes pulled up along the shore, etc We also have videos of the boys, for the historian, but they are only used for in-house recruiting, COH backgrounds, etc.They never make it to the WebMaster.

@@qwazse I'm thinking the concern was not so much the published picture in as much as seeing a Cub Scout using an ax. The Whittling Chip" applies only to pocket knives, not woods tools that takes the "Totin' Chit" and that can't be earned as a Cub.

Go down to the local grade school with a camera and start taking pictures of kids. 50 years ago, it would have been no big deal, it'll draw a lot of unwanted attention today. I've been in the "Kid Business" now for 45 years and I have seen a lot of changes during that time. There are things I did 40 years ago that I wouldn't even think of doing today. The world has changed and if one doesn't keep up with the times, it could jump up and bite them. I don't want to be anywhere near a situation like that.

One would think that if a patrol was managerial efficient, the PL's would be making a concerted effort to get organized and have his people working together "as a team" (as mentioned). Over the years I have found that a member of the group feels more "valuable" to the group if they have a reason to be. GrubMaster is a valued patrol member as it the PL and APL (maybe, if he's actually functioning as one). Same for even the Chaplain Aide. QM and Scribe. Besides feeling like a valuable contributor, a necessary part of the patrol, they are also busy enough to stay out of trouble as well. I think it's a lot easier to blow off attendance at an event if one doesn't feel like they are a valuable part of the group and will be needed to make everything work smoothly. Every time someone say, Joey can't make it, no big deal, there's a serious problem in the esprit de corps in that patrol. Obviously the PL isn't doing leadership and taking care of his people at this point. So what JOB should Joey be managing? Anything's better than nothing. I think that GBB also had a CheerMaster and ActivityMaster as part of his patrol structure. If nothing else, make something up, give it a title, and don't worry about it. When it comes to servant leadership, the water boy is one of the strongest leaders on the team, he keeps everyone else hydrated and on their feet, he takes care of his boys.

I wouldn't have pictures of other people's children on a FB page in the first place, regardless of what they are doing. Maybe a picture where none of their faces show might be okay, but I don't think it's worth the risk. I have a ton of pictures of the boys on their outings, just none of them on the internet.

If I were to be quite honest about the whole thing, the only position I would not count twice would be SPL. If one has a large troop and has multiple NSP's I would think 1 TG might not be enough. I'm thinking with larger groups more QM's would be needed. Simply for management efficiency, not even any leadership, the PL can't be the only one in the know about what is going on in his patrol. I would definitely have a patrol QM, but even then with 8 patrols, that would be quite the handful for the "troop" QM to handle with that much equipment to be responsible for. Maybe some of that responsibility needs to be retained on the patrol level just for logistics sake. In a large group maybe multiple ASPL's would be needed. On a practical level, maybe just one WebMaster, and one Bugler, but if one has 2-3 feeder packs multiple DC and WDC would be in order as well. Flip the coin over to the other side and I don't think there is much need for an SPL/ASPL team when one has just a couple of patrols. I don't think a small troop needs a Bugler and maybe not a Librarian, but if the boy in a small troop is looking for a POR for advancement, I would have the boy who's a GrubMaster for the patrol, do a handful of cooking classes for the boys, work with the new boys getting menus together and teaching them how to shop while wearing the Instructor patch on his shirt isn't going to raise any eyebrows come EBOR time. What it boils down to is some common sense. One doesn't want to be short on real leadership for the unit, but then one doesn't want all chiefs and no Indians either. (Sorry for the ethnic colloquialism, just pretend it's an O/A thingy)

Leadership can be affixed to the POR, but it isn't required for it. A boy can do leadership on just about anything he wants, but again, the advancement requirement doesn't say it's necessary.

Totally agree, but being responsible for a job and being responsible for another person's welfare are two different entities. It's a lot easier to teach people how to do a job (management) but don't assume that it entails any lessons in leadership. So, if leadership is the goal of the program, why is everyone assuming that POR's promote that goal? Being responsible for paperwork doesn't necessitate anyone else. Being responsible for equipment/gear doesn't necessitate anyone else. Both jobs can be done by a single person and no one to lead. End of the requirement, check the box and move on. Take a look at the example of the other thread. Boy does his Eagle project to show leadership (explicitly stated in the requirement). He gets the job done but omits the SM from the communication loop. Sure, he got the job done, but a serious lapse in leadership by not taking care of his SM as part of the leadership of the project.

I have a pair of uniform pants that I've been wearing 1/2 the time since 1992 when I got my first uniform. In 1999 I got a second pair of long pants so I don't have to do the laundry as much. In either case. both are still being worn and have only slight wear in them. By slight wear, I mean a bit shiny in the seat, otherwise there is NO SCOUT EVENT that I'm not in full-uniform. I have the same shirt from 1992 as well and I'll be wearing that to tonight's meeting as well. I would suggest a pair of the old cargo pocket pants from off of E-bay.

I don't think BSA calls them Positions of Leadership, I think they call them Positions of Responsibility. One does not need to be a leader to get credit for it. Just be responsible for getting the job done. Getting the job done can be done by intimidation and coercion and some will still call it leadership. But... no one has to follow, just do the job..... or else. It's a lesson in following directions, not following leaders.

No one person ever shops for our patrols either. They have to arrange to shop with a buddy. TF #9 adults don't count in a boy-led patrol-method operation -