JMHawkins

McDonald's doesn't just supply the raw materials for their burgers. They ensure uniformity in their hamburgers by pre-making them at central locations and shipping them frozen to the individual stores where all that's needed is a few final assembly steps. If we want BSA to do the same thing, they'll need to ship us pre-fab Scouts flash-frozen at a scoutfactory on the outskirts of Irving. We keep 'em in a freezer until it's time for another Webelos cross-over, then we unbox a few of 'em, slap 'em on the grill and ask the parents if they want to supersize 'em. A better analogy than McDonalds would be some sort of culinary school. They teach techniques and attempt to instill some general notions of correct outcome in the chefs, and then the chefs go out and cook with whatever local ingredients they find. Another difference between BSA and McDonalds is that the folks cooking the burgers at McDonalds are paid employees, not volunteers. An organization that relies on volunteers to deliver the bulk of the "product" needs to give the volunteers lots of local leeway in determining how things are going to work, or the volunteers will dissapear.

While the scouts should be aware of the program......I wouldn't promote it real heavy until they are one merit badge short.... I would promote it a bit in the lead up to the PLC planning session. It might be another way of helping them envision a well-rounded program. Most of the items in there are going to take a while to accomplish - at least a couple of years to get to the 2 x gold needed for the pin.

Quick question on how the gold/silver devices work. For Camping, it's a gold device for every 25 nights of camping beyond the initial 25, and a silver device for every 100. When a scout earns a silver device, is he supposed to replace his 3 gold devices with the silver one? I assume so, but wanted to check here. It would be: 25 nights total = award 50 nights total = 1 gold 75 nights total = 2 gold 100 nights total= 3 gold 125 nights total= 1 silver 150 nights total= 1 silver + 1 gold etc.

When ever I hear of weak Eagle scouts people generally refer too.... In my case, it's: -Lack of self confidence. -Limited independence. -Underdeveloped sense of personal responsibilty.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the pull cart issue is from a scout running themself or someone else over with a scout cart at a council campground or on some other campout while hauling equipment from the parking area? Thus the ban? Dean, one of my philosophical objections to how Richard is doing his job is that we don't know. He won't tell us what happened to prompt these changes. That means we don't have any details of how Scouts got injured (if they even did), and thus no ability to prevent future injuries of the same sort. Richard assumes the injuries will be prevented by his bans and prohibitions, but that assumes he actually identified the real problem that led to the injuries, and I'm pretty certain he did not. Of coure the other problem is we can't be sure about that because nobody will share the information that went into the decision making process. From the original thread on the handcart/wheelbarrow ban, there was some comment - perhaps from Richard himself - about a scout falling off a trailer while using a hand truck. That seemed to be the justification for banning red wagons. Maybe I'm mistaken - but if I am Richard, why don't you lay out the actual facts. Tell us about the discussions that happened while reviewing the new guidelines, let us have the insights of the professional safety managers so we have more information to do our jobs. If you really do want to work yourself out of a job Richard, the best way is to provide information to the people on the scene supervising the activities Scouts engage in. Fewer diktats, more information.

Kudu However, we hand out Eagle Scout badges to boys who have never walked into the woods with a pack on their backs. I looked up the requirements for this award (National Outdoor Achievement Award): http://www.boyscouttrail.com/content/award/national_outdoor_achievement-2112.asp That trumps Eagle in my book. I get the impression a lot fewer of those are awarded too.

"Prepare a meal plan for a campout. Demonstrate why whatever meal-plan our Patrol will come up with will be unacceptable. Make sure each of the food groups--Pop-tarts, Gummy worms, and Doritos are included." "Using the 2015 approved FDA list of unapproved foods, go through the food you have packed for a campout and remove all items not approved for youth consumption. If anything is left, demonstrate concern for potential food allergies by removing it as well. Explain to your Scoutmaster that no youth under 25 could possibly be trusted with choosing or preparing his own food, so you can't go camping and need to stay home so your mother can feed you."

If you want to require a higher standard of leadership or morals, well, good luck. It's very difficult to describe a consistent standard for this. You could do something like OA, I guess. Require someone to get a 50% vote of the Scouts in the unit as deserving Eagle. Not that that could ever cause any problems.... For leadership, in another thread I suggested limiting the PORs that qualify for Eagle to the actual leadership positions (PL/APL, SPL/ASPL, TG, JASM). That would be a start. I also think you could require a "vote of confidence" after the term is up from the scouts under his leadership for the position to count. While there may be problems, honestly a PL isn't supposed to be Drill Instructor. Being a friend to every scout in his Patrol is one of his jobs. There should be some sort of evaluation after he has done the job to deterime if he did it well enough to get credit. Or maybe it's something like the Quartermaster cruise Eagle92 mentioned, being the guy in charge for an outdoor adventure that requires leadership skills to pull off. Morals are indeed always going to be hard because you can't boil them down to a checklist that avoids anyone making a judgement. Morality is always a subjective call. Then again, we ought to at least allow the SM to make that call. Really, if we don't trust the SM to give a fair and honest evaluation of a youth, why is he the SM? He's supposed to be the most visible adult setting an example of living the Scout Law, but we don't trust him to actually make a judgement call when a judgement call is needed.

Something else about the current G2A's requirement about First Class First Year, Star the next year: What sort of thinking has Star taking as along as the entire T-2-1 batch of material? Unless we adopted a policy of no MBs until First Class, I don't see how a scout who is active and interested enough to really earn FC in one year is going to take an entire extra year to get to Star. Seems this wasn't really thought out.

The real Patrol Leader will have his boys go through the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class stages as fast as is consistent with thoroughness. He will have them move along all the time. That natually means that he himself must advance too. Indeed. You may notice a few difference from today. For instance, that ancient advice did not specify a timeframe, but rather "...as fast as is consistent with thoroughness." Contrast that with "First Class, First Year" where the emphasis is on hitting a specific time frame as thoroughly as possible, rather than being thorough as quickly as possible. Ah, quite an interesting difference. Also, that old advice from GBB was to the Patrol Leader, who was responsible for keeping his guys moving along the advancement trail. Today the G2A states that the adult Committee Advancement Chair has the responsibility to Establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year.

Just do to sports what we did to Scouting: Break the game down into individual "First Year Skills," and sign them off in a week of summer camp (with no re-testing). These signed off skills (running, kicking, throwing, catching) will never actually be used in a game, but understood as isolated skills. In the place of a game, skills are then "reviewed" while sitting indoors in a Coach Conference, followed by job interview practice called a Board of Review. You forgot to assign the Team Mom to bring snacks and a juice box after the skills review. But yeah, the Journeys would be a great idea. And if I had my way, Life would probably require completing a 50-miler, and Eagle would probably require leading one. Talk about adding to the requirements...

The research on FCFY did show that boys who made FC in about a year tended to stick with scouting - but not WHY. ...It is probably not the act of being awarded FC rank that results in greater longevity - it is more likely to be solid programming in a strong troop and maybe the boy's personal interest, that cause a boy to do both (earn FC... Absolutely. Recognizing the mistaken assumptions behind FCFY is a critical step in salvaging the Advancement Method. Plus, another bit of weakening the FCFY emphasis does in troops that take it to heart is it removes the opportunity from the Scout to learn about setting and managing his own goals. If they adults are force-marking hims through the ranks, he never learns how to prioritize and manage his own advancement. Frankly the biggest hurdle to T-2-1 advancement in our Troop is the Scout remembering to bring his book and get something signed off. We had one scout get a couple of things signed off after his first campout, then didn't bring his book for nearly a year. Finally decided he wanted to earn some ranks, brought his book, and because he'd been on so many campouts and hikes, by the end of the meeting he was 90% signed off all the way to First Class and just had a handful of things left to do. 11-12-13 year olds are concrete, hands-on creatures. Many boys would probably take greater pride in earning FC than in earning Star. I'm pretty sure our guys are more proud of the special color troop activity shirts they earned for 30 nights camping in a year then they are of any formal rank advancement. They started wearing those shirts immediately, but we often have to remind them to sew a patch on when they've earned it. A local SM in our council says based on the records he's been keeping (apparently has a spreadsheet tracking nearly everything about scout activity in his troop going back years), the biggest factor in retention is a 50-miler hike. He claims that if a scout completes a 50-miler, odds are he's going to age out as an active scout. If he doesn't, he'll drop out at some point. Accomplishment is what keeps them in, and it seems like the more adventuresome the accomplishment, the better.

I think both the journey and the destination are important, though I prefer qwazes' use of waypoints instead of destiantion. The journey is what our life is, so it is important, but without some waypoints to guide us, it's awfully easy to either just wander aimlessles, or else to get stuck in the rut following a path someone else laid out for you, and who knows where that will go? Even worse might be getting stuck in the ruts following a path some previous generation laid out that doesn't go anywhere any more. We need some goals to help us shape our journey, but everything has to be in perspective. I think persepective is something often lost today. It requires good judgement and the courage ot use it, two things we don't teach very well. Anyway, the journey and the destination aren't antagonists, they're teammates. I think it says a great deal about our problems that we misunderstand that so often.

As far as #9 goes, what if (to make an extreme example) the Aryan Nation wants to sponsor a Troop? There's a good reason that some policies are not "choose your own adventure." I never said BSA would accept anyone as a CO, I just said it would defend the membership policies of the organizations it does accept. I'm pretty sure that would be a requirement of any sort of Local Choice policy. Dean Don't know about Mike Rowe as Chief Scout, but a marketing campaign featuring well known and respected celebs and other public figures that were / are scouters would go a LONG way to combat the "scouting isn't cool" image and help both retention and fundraising. Yes, that's the idea. I'm not thinking of Chief Scout as reviving Green Bar Bill's position so much as making it an ambassador's position, selling the program to both kids and adults. So when BasementDweller's football coach tells his kids Scouts are wimps, they look at him and think "this guys' an idiot. Mike Rowe isn't a wimp." Seattle Yes, I think Tigers are focused on fun, and that's something maybe the rest of the program should have more of. My own son is just about to hit Webelos II, and the AOL requiremnts can be pretty dry at times. Seems like the Webelos program could do with more fun. But I'm also sensing a large amount of burnout in the den - from the boys, parents, and leaders. Maybe it's the fun, maybe it's the length of time in the program, maybe it's something else. I just don't know what.

Bobwhite89: I do like your theory of uniforms costs. I do wonder if it would really make a different in getting everyone uniformed. It might, but really, that bullet point is about something else. It's about BSA National being clear about what it is. BSA has a mission - to deliver a certain program to youth in America. But how should they do that? They could deliver that program as a business - the way that Apple delivers iPhones to customers for example. Nothing wrong with that, many for-profit businesses have done a great deal of good while engaged in business. Or, BSA could deliver the program as a charitable organization, relying on donations of time and money from people who support their mission rather than profits on goods and services. But I think it's important to make a choice between the two and not muddy the water. As it stands now, BSA tries to be a little of both. They seek donations of money (FOS) and time (us), but also try to make a profit on uniforms, books, etc. That undermines the program and sullies things a bit. Same thing sort of happens with training in a lot of districts. Training is an essential part of delivering the program, but some councils expect training to turn a profit. Bad idea, dillutes the message, undermines the mission. A restaurant can try to make money selling soup. A Soup Kitchen that takes charitable donations should not. BSA takes charitable donations, so we shouldn't be marking up the soup. This one [Youth Protection] sort of happens now, but a lot of room to expand its reach. I think BSA's work here is very good, and something we/they should be proud of. The understanding that, as a youth-serving organzation, we are going to be targetted by predators and need to be prepared, is very important and commendable. Other organizations have tried to turn a blind eye and hope it doesn't happen, but given the situation, that's a doomed strategy. My objective with this bullet point is two-fold: one, to help spread the information and ideas BSA has developed to other youth-serving organizations in an effort to improve knowledge throughout society, and two, to help calm fears that people have about the potential for abuse. Certainly the potential is real, and no parent (or legislator) should ignore it, but it's also important to keep it in perspective and to know the people your son is being associated with are actively working to prevent abuse. Tiger Cubs Yeah, I think something has to happen with the Cub Scout program, there's too much burnout by Webelos. I don't know if it's starting them as Tigers or what, but something should change. I just don't know what. Learning for Life Does BSA still spend money on this? Yikes. Agreed, cut. online applications Yes, would be part of #6 for me.

Yeah, everyone here liked RichardB up until the wheelbarrow/wagon age limit notice, and all RichardB did was explain it, he did not say he authored it, or was the person from on high who demanded it to be created.. Yet all of a sudden, everyone now is ready to lynch him.. I am not happy with that at all. I should perhaps clairify my comment about RichardB. From his discussion on the new policies, as well as his discussions about some of the existing G2SS material, I've gotten the impression that his philosophy about saftey is one that I believe is counterproductive. I'm not blaming him for the head-scratcher policies, but I am blaming him for the responses he had in the discussions. Perhaps I am misreading him, but I formed the idea that he a) favors centralized decisions from National about what is and isn't safe instead of expectations of responsible behavior and common sense. A Scout fell off a trailer using a hand cart I believe was the justification for what's become "The Wheel barrow Ban." As best I can tell, this is the result of attempting to respond to a poorly supervised activity where a careless or inexperienced young man got hurt doing something thousands of people do each day without incident. Instead of providing guidance about training and supervision, the attempt to simply disallow the activity became a farce, not just because centralized decisionmaking is prone to such stupidity, but also because the focus on banning the activity apparently so captured the thought-process of the people invovled that no one realized they were banning wheelbarrows on flat ground with the language. They were so focused on the one incident, they lost sight of what they were actually doing. Either that or it's even worse than we thought. b) isn't willing to share information about the decision making process, instead resorting to petty bureaucratic maneuvers. Specifically I'm referring to his invitation that I write up a proprosal for how alcohol stoves could be used safely intead of providing me/us the write-ups done to determine that they were unsafe. In theory, someone at National has information on the risks of using alcohol stoves, including documented injuries from it, which formed the basis of the ban. All of us would be better served if that information was provided. The snarky offer to fill out a form struck me as unhelpful and not the attitude of someone who is dedicated to helping volunteers. And again, from what we're able to piece together, the restrictions on alcohol stoves appears to be the result of an accident that did not involve stoves at all. The lack of transparency about what is going on is detrimental to our ability to provide effective supervision of activities, as well as to our ability to retain respect for the rules being created. If a Scout(er) is going to be Obedient to your rules, then you owe him a great deal of respect when you are making the rules. That respect should include giving him an honest explanation when he asks for one. After all, the second part of "A Scout is Obedient" is that he seeks to change rules he disagrees with in an orderly manner, and how can he do that if the people who made the rule won't tell him why they made it? If I have misread Richard, then I apologize, and - were I King - I'd give him an opportuntity to keep his job, providing he could demonstrate a commitment to safety through knowledge, preparation, and personal responsibility. But the G2SS would get the ground-up rewirte regardless.

Well, I'm not sure it's always the G2A that causes the confusion. In the case of the Camping MB 9a discussion, I think it's the way the requirements are written. In that case, it appears someone attempted to clarify the requirement by adding some additional language about long-term camping, but it just confused people because it was written to clarify the process instead of the goals. Based on the explaination from Bryan on Scouting, it looks like the goal is to ensure the scout has been on a variety of camping trips, perhaps in order to give him time to learn from pervious trips and apply that knowledge to future ones - and excellent goal in my opinion. In most troops, 20 nights camping would do that, but obviously there were some troops were scouts were doing mostly summer camp style stuff and guys were getting their 20 nights without doing much real planning, and perhaps eating 18 of the 20 days worth of meals in a dining hall. So, someone added the long-term camping limits in order to avoid that. But it's confusing because if two kids go to summer camp, then one does a week a Philmont and the other goes car camping for the weekend, the car camping counts but the Philmont trek doesn't. Clearly that's an odd result, and it confuses people because it seems wrong. A better approach would be to align the requiremnts to the goals themselves. I would rewrite 9a to say something like: 9a) attend a minimum of 8 camping trips as a member of your Patrol or Troop, or with another designated Scouting group approved by your counselor. Camp at least 20 nights during the 8 or more camping trips. Help your group plan and prepare for each trip. Each day perform your camp duties according to the group's Duty Roster. Sleep each night under the stars or in a portable shelter you helped set up. As far as the G2A, maybe one change would be to simply eliminate the prohibiion on MBCs "adding to the requirements." Why not? If Mr. Smith is a hardcase and won't count car camping for the Camping MB, well, nobody has to take the MB from him. That eliminates the entire Canoeing MB swimtest argument. Counselor says the swim test has to be one he approves of, then it has to be one he approves of, stop arguing and start swimming. Also, perhaps make it explict that an MBC or BOR should not approve advancmeent/MB if in their judgement the scout is not knowledgable about the material expected for the rank or badge, regardless of what requiremetns have previously been signed off. So, short summary: define the goals not the process, and explicitly require the adult(s) approving advancement to use judgement in determining if the scout has earned the award.

Da thing of it is, that's not necessarily the program. A SM conference is just a talk, and yeh have to participate not pass. Really the only review mechanism is the BOR. So it's quite possible that in a different program the SM can be a friend and mentor at a conference, and a BOR can say "no, not yet" with the SM's full agreement. Yep, which is why I was careful to say "If the SM thinks the scout is ready for advancement..." The BOR really should know what the SM thinks of the scout's preparation. Of course, if everything is signed off in the book, but the adult leadership doesn't think the Scout is ready to advance, that says something too.

I mentioned that mom wouldn't be that happy with the boys.......I know the wife won't be with me if I go camping that day....... They seem stead fast in their choice........ Suggestions to help guide them from making this choice or do you have a troop policy against holiday camping??? Well, in order to go on the campout, the scouts need two things: 1) permission from their families, and 2) a couple of appropriate adults who are available to go with them that weekend. After the PLC plans the year, the adults should sit down to see if they can schedule adequate coverage for all the events. If nobody can make it for a particular trip (say, for instance, because it's Mother's Day and the leaders all have other plans), then you go back to the PLC and say, "well, we're okay for the January through April trips, and June through December, but we don't have anyone who can make it on the date you scheduled for your May campout. Remember I said it was Mother's Day? All the ASMs have plans. If you want to move it to the weekend before, I and Mr. Smith can go, or if you move it to the weekend after, Mr. Jones and Mr. Jackson can go. What do you want to do?" OTOH, if Smith and Jones are willing to go on Mother's Day, fine. The authority to make the plan comes with the responsibility to make the plan work. There are resources they need to pull it off, and if they're too stubborn in their negotiations with those resources, they may have a bit of a problem making the plan work. Good lesson.

I would never leave such a decision to the scout. That is like asking him "Do you want to piss off Mr A or Mr. B.?" This may be the first time, but it certainly won't be the last time, he finds himself in such a position. Life is like that. If you're any sort of a responsible citizen, let alone a leader, you will find yourself occasionally forced to make a choice between two essentially incompatible positions, with people on either side being dissapointed, angry, perhaps even "pissed off" if you choose the other side. Making the choice for him so he doesn't have to "piss off" Mr A or Mr B is like cooking for him on a campout becaue you don't trust him to do it right. You're making it easier on him now, but at the expense of his future self-sufficiency. If he really has done all the things needed to earn that badge, he's ready to make this sort of decision.

On the occasion of BSA getting a new CSE, I thought Id take the opportunity to think about what changes I would make if I were King of the BSA. Figured Id put it here since its all speculation and at least one bullet point will probably devolve to an I&P thread anyway: In no particular order: 1. I would thank RichardB for his service, but inform him that his philosophy on safety was not in line with mine and that we would be hiring a replacement. I would then hire a new Chief Liability Officer who would be tasked with a ground-up rewrite of the G2SS. His or her mission would be to create a guide that emphasized training, and the development of judgment, skill, and personal responsibility when engaged in potentially dangerous activities, rather than rigid rules of what is and is not permitted. Any activities banned by the G2SS that are routinely engaged in by youth outside of Scouting would require significant justification for continuing to ban or even recommend against on the grounds of safety. Activities that have risk associated with them would describe reasonable and appropriate training for participants and supervisors. The CLO would also be charged with securing liability coverage in line with these guidelines and objectives, as well as with promoting reasonable, fair and productive liability laws. BSA would be a leader in the effort to reverse the trend of litigation driving public policy. 2. I would aggressively trim expenses, looking to reduce overhead wherever possible. This would almost certainly take the form of reduced salaries (including my own) and reduced headcount, replacing paid positions with volunteers where possible. Apologies to the professionals whos salaries would be impacted, Im sure youre doing a great job, but money is tight. 3. I would create the Outdoor Access group, charged with ensuring youth in every part of the nation have reasonable, affordable, access to camping and backpacking. Employees and volunteers in this group would work with local councils to keep camps open and affordable, and work with land managers to ensure low-cost, reasonable access to public lands by Scout groups. They would provide units with easily accessed suggestions for a wide range of outdoor activities. Perhaps BSA would even publish local Hiking/camping/boating guides. 4. I would require the merchandising division to provide quality uniform equipment at costs in line with non-BSA branded clothing, and also ask them to at least provide the option of a Made in USA version of all uniform articles. Non-uniform gear could continue to come with a markup and serve as a fund raising avenue, but items essential to the Uniform Method would not be profit centers. (wondering where the money saved by the cost cutting would go?). 5. I would try to recruit Mike Rowe as Chief Scout. And I would set the expectations that we always have a respected Chief Scout, preferably someone youth will look up to and take encouragement from. I would also create Assistant Chief Scout positions, or Junior Chief Scout positions, that are held by accomplished public figures(entertainment, sports, business, military, etc) in their 20s and 30s, using their status to help combat the scouting isnt cool perception among older youths. 6. I would make some changes in the IT department. Not sure what looking from the outside, but definitely something needs to change. The current BSA web presence is terrible. 7. I would create the National Youth Serving Organization Protection Initiative, dedicated to identifying and evangelizing best practices for youth-serving organizations to combat child predators. The goal would be to provide organizations, volunteers, parents and youths with the most effective information and guidelines for preventing child predators from using youth organizations as hunting grounds. 8. Advancement guidelines would be revamped to emphasize mastery of the skills rather than one-time demonstration of them. T-2-1 ranks would no longer allow for concurrent progress. A scout would need to earn Tenderfoot rank before being signed off on 2nd Class requirements, and 2nd class rank before being signed off on 1st Class requirements. This would be to encourage mastery of the skills as well as maturity in the program, each rank building upon the character development of the previous rank. FCFY would be dropped. BORs for T-2-1 would be conducted by the PLC (or older scouts for smaller troops), with guidance from the adult leadership. Senior scouts would also be encouraged to participate in BORs for Star, Life and Eagle. The list of PORs acceptable for Star, Life and Eagle would be cut back to those with leadership requirements (PL/APL, SPL/ASPL, TG, JASM, as well as venturing/seascout leadership positions), and would require the SM to sign off on the scout having fulfilled the requirements of the position, not just served time in it. 9. I would institute a Local Choice policy for membership, but also couple it with a policy of providing legal defense for any COs sued over membership policies. BSA National would aggressively defend the right of Charter Orgs to set their membership policies, but would defer to the individual Charter Orgs on what those membership policies are. 10. I would create the Scouters Always Learning program, essentially a set of Program Helps for councils and districts to organize and run ongoing adult training to provide for the continuous acquisition and development of youth mentoring and outdoor skills needed by the adults in a successful program. The objective would be a program that respects volunteers time while providing opportunities to learn and master important skills. 11. FOS would be directly only at businesses, foundations, and large donors. Families and volunteers would not be targeted for fundraising. The annual FOS presentation to units would be changed from one requesting donations (with targets no less) to one explaining where the money actually goes and closing with suggestions for how families can help raise money for the district/council/national, such as reminders about employee matching programs and requests to pass on information to any large donors the family members may be connected to. Budgets would be published with adequate detail for volunteers and donors to evaluate the efficiency of the organization. 12. Recruiting Helps would be a major initiative, providing units with more help, ideas, and support, for recruiting drives. Okay, that's my pitch for the job. What's yours?

If you have to focus your energy on one and only one program, then it's Troop no question. Cub Scouts is fun, nice, good for the kids, but there are other places where they can find those things at that age. A functional troop however is one of the very few opportunities for teenage boys to find the challenges and experiences they need to develop into good men. Perhaps a feeder pack is important for the long-term health of a Troop, perhaps not. But either way, for your sons, the Troop is important and you should focus on that if it needs your help (whether it's an existing troop or a new one). Other fathers will need to step up for the cub scout program. Recruiting them is a good goal, but like others have said, you can't do everything yourself. You will need to choose where your energy goes. My main advice would be to figure out where you can find the most functional adult contribution. That might be the existing troop with the clueless SM. I would suspect that if the choking story is as you described* then you aren't the only adult concerned about it, and maybe you can help that Troop fix itself. Maybe it's another troop a little farther away as other's have suggested. Maybe it is a group of adults who will help get a new troop started. You will need a team though, you can't do it all by yourself. At the very least you'll need a functional committee, especially if you are starting with all young scouts. If there isn't an existing team for you to join, then you'll need to recruit your team. Part of your team might be some folks to help rescue the Pack. * I would strongly advise you to first - if you haven't already - double and triple check on the details of that story. Most adults are really not as idiotic as the SM in your story comes across, so there's a good chance the story is garbled. On the other hand, some people are that clueless. I'd give the SM enough of the benefit of the doubt to carefully verify the story if you haven't already.

This is a great personal development opportunity for the scout. I'd sit down with him, explain the two camps (hey, where's Beavah?) and let him know there are many people who think that the paperwork is the most important thing, and until the bureaucracy at National is finished processing it and sends it back, those folks would think it's wrong for him to wear the rank or call himself an Eagle Scout. I'd also tell him there is another camp that thinks the work he has already done, which was validated by his EBOR, is the most important thing and those folks believe he is entitled to wear the patch right now. The first camp will be offended if he disagrees with them, and question his character and whether he is really trustworthy or not. The second camp will not be offended if he disagrees with them, but they may consider it to be a mark of leadership and courage if he defies the first camp and wears the patch now. Whichever camp he agrees to follow, he will add a small amount of credibility to that camp's position when the next scout is in his position. Which is right? I think that's up to him. If he has truly earned his rank, he should have the maturity to make that decision himself - his adult mentors should simply give him full information about the available options and let him choose. (edit: fixed dumb spelling mistake)(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

The most important thing is for the adult leadership in the Troop to be on the same page about expectations. That should be the goal of the adult organization in the Troop. The CC/COR need to consider that - getting everyone one the same page - a top priority. The members of the BOR should not - under any circumstances - use the BOR as a means of arguing with the SM about something. If the SM thinks the scout is ready for advancement, it should be rare as hens' teeth for the BOR to say no. But it should also be rare as hen's teeth for the SM to say a scout is ready that the members of the BOR think isn't. "Rubber-stamping" suggests you're thinking the SM is on some other team. He's not. He's on your team, you work together. For that matter, the Scout is on your team too. Everybody should agree on what the objectives and standards are. If there is disagreement, that should be worked out and an acceptible solution agreed on.

I think my test for identifying the first group is pretty good, eh? They quote "don't add to the requirements" more often than any other advancement guidance (and always without the "subtract" clause) I think a perfect example of this was the recent canoeing MB discussion where some commenters mentioned adding to the requirements before even addressing the question of safety. Im not saying those folks dont care about the safety of scouts or that they would be neglectful of appropriate safety measures. But it is illustrative of the camp that not adding to the requirements gets a higher priority in the discussion than swimming ability for a water related MB where poor swimmers could be at great risk. Its not limited to Scouting either, BTW. In the real world its called Credentialism and its having a large (and I think negative) impact on our society. Too many people are more concerned with qualifications than with abilities. At first glance, maybe it seems like the two are the same thing, but theyre not. Ability is something you the hiring manager, voter, etc. must decide about the person. Qualifications i.e. credentials - are what someone else has previously decided about the person, but you dont know how effective, honest, and diligent that someone else was in their evaluation. Did they have high standards? Or did they just wave them on through? Credentials are a lot easier to fake than ability. Relying on them is dangerous. Teaching our kids to value them above ability is dangerous. To my mind, writing everything down and turning it into a written contract undermines character development, eh? Yeh can never write everything down. Agreed. It is the perhaps well-intentioned, but doomed desire of bureaucrats to write everything down. Every question must have a written policy, with well-defined criteria for decision making, and personal judgment is to be avoided. This doesnt work. I program computers for a living. Ive done it for many years. Computers have no judgment, they must have explicit instructions for every possibility. They need to have everything written down. Its very, very hard to do. Its incredibly easy to forget a detail, miss a possibility, or to have a small error in one sub-step that causes the entire program to crash. There are so many times when I have wished the machine could do what made sense instead of literally what I told it to do because clearly what I had written down was a mistake. But the computer doesnt know that cant tell the difference. People who want to do this to human beings who have the ability to develop and use judgment simply have no idea how hard the task really is. Further, the techniques we use in software development to find and fix programming flaws could never be used for real-world policy development. I can subject the silicon chips of my computer to a million random iterations through what Ive written to find a flaw. Then I can fix that flaw and run another million iterations to verify I didnt create another problem. I (or better yet, a dedicated test engineer working as my partner) can create elaborate test suites that subject my policy to various scenarios and evaluate the results. We can (and often do) spend weeks or even months iterating over changes until were finally convinced it works well enough to let other people use it for real. BSA could never do that with advancement policies (or any other sort of policy). Subject a thousand Eagle candidates to the new policy? Then subject thousand more to the revised policy after they discovered the (first) problem? Nah, wouldnt work. Wouldnt be fair, just, or kind. People have the ability to use judgment. Its a powerful gift. We should encourage development of it. Trying to replace it with policy is a very bad idea.