KC9DDI

I think some more information is needed here? What is your role with the troop? SM, ASM, parent? How did you come to know of the situation before it happened? Is this ritual a "tradition" in your troop, or is this the first time it's come up? Are there more possibilities of hazing in the immediate future? What does the SPL and PLC think about this?

I can't say I've noticed anything that worries me (at least, nothing more than what is sometimes observed at a unit level). In the district/council events that I'm involved with that are staffed by youth, the youth almost always come from several different troops and crews. So, sometimes there's a difference in expectations (in terms of behavior, leadership, uniform, etc) between their "home troop" and the event that they're working on. Sometimes this situation can cause some difficulties that need to be resolved - but they're never resolved "disrespectfully".

To offer a slightly different perspective... More than a few times, youth make decisions based on what we see as the "wrong" bases. We often see this in troop leadership position elections, as well as OA elections. The fact that a non-parent ASM contacted you about this issue makes me think that there is at least a possibility that Scouts may not be voting based on acceptable criteria, and this isn't just a "everyone's a winner"-type issue. So, all I'm saying is, it may be worth doing a little more investigation into the situation before you write it off. I agree that it's not appropriate to change the election results - but maybe the OA and the unit leadership might need to work together the help ensure that Scouts are taking the appropriate factors into consideration when voting.

NO, IT'S YOU THAT'S MISSING THE POINT.... (yada yada yada) John - I read the article, it's very interesting. But it's not making the same point that you're trying to make. What I'm hearing you say: "We don't need low-skill jobs in this country". What I'm reading in the article: "We need more trained people for high-skill jobs in this country." Similar, related - but not at all the same thing.

We should want the right jobs to stay here (the ones that require training and skills) not just any job. Why?? Seems like there's an awful lot of unemployed Americans who would disagree with you. Do we also want only the "right people" to stay here, and be rid of the rest?

Yeah, Brew, I too find it frustrating that a position that I strongly agree with (re-introducing a strong outdoors-based program to Scouting, emphasis on patrols and true youth leadership) gets tarnished by those who can't carry on a polite, coherent conversation on the topic...

Baden - Maybe it's not a very good Christian organization. But I still don't understand, specifically, why it is not a true Scouting program?

I get the concerns and unhappiness over AHG's use of religion, but I'm still not sure what criteria are used to evaluate whether ANY program (be it the AHG, the BSA, the GSUSA, etc) is a true Scouting program. BadenP - What is the specific reason that the AHG wouldn't be considered a true Scouting organization?

What is the definition of a true "Scouting program?"

Got to agree with BD. As an aside, I don't see how "Merit Badge Universities" are at all compatible with the Advancement Method. But, unfortunately, as long as they are a source of income for the council, and appeal to Eagle Mill troops, I don't see them going away. But, in answer to your question, let me ask you: what purpose does this "sign in" process serve? If the Scout is contacting the MB counselor prior to the event (as he should be), and the counselor says "Great, we'll be meeting at 9am next Saturday in room 123 of Smalltown High School. Be sure to read over the MB book, and be prepared to discuss A, B, C. Let me know if you have any questions, and see you then!" -- where does the need for this additional sign in or registration process come from?

perdidochas - Been there, done that (actually several times in one week. That poor tent went in the dumpster at the end of the week - after almost 15 years of service!) It seems I always strike my tent under the one tree in the camp which houses a woodpecker. And the woodpecker apparently wakes up and starts going to town on the tree several hours before I want to wake up. Maybe not the worst experience ever, but I did have a wild turkey fly/fall into the side of my tent at about 3am one morning. I remember being half-awake trying to identify a strange noise (which was apparently a gaggle of turkeys fighting/mating/playing/something), and then hear a loud "crash" into the side of my tent. Got up the next morning to find my rain fly covered in blood, and turkey feathers all around.

So, to tie this in back to the entertaining thread on light bulb changing in I&P: 1 forum member to tell us that the light bulb didn't actually burn out, it's been working fine all along 3 forum members to chastise us for daring to opine on how to change the light bulb that we all were told was actually burned out (I keed, I keed)

I would suggest those that are BSA bashers will get the lowest priority in getting any response This is just an observation, you can do anything you want with this information: I think most of the so-called "BSA bashers" you'll encounter are experienced, dedicated Scouters with several years of experience directly serving youth at unit, district and council levels. After several years of having to fight tooth and nail to glean reliable information from National, having to deal with inconsistent and poorly publicized rules and regulations, and generally being ignored by the policy makers at a National level... well, that's bound to cause some frustration over the years. Some might even "bash" the BSA for treating their paying customers in this way. It sounds like National is moving in the right direction, with offering some more communication methods, and (hopefully) working on revamping their website. But you can't really blame people for being frustrated right now. And, I think if National is smart, they might try to identify the reasons WHY people are frustrated, and see what can be done to address them. But to continue to ignore frustrated volunteers, as you seem to be suggesting National should or will do - that's only going to create more "BSA bashers."(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

Agree with E61. Perhaps Junior should have been more proactive in communicating plans and changes in plans to mom (assuming these plans and changes were communicated to Junior in a timely fashion, and the unit didn't have some silly ban on cell phones or communication devices in general) - but, if a parent wishes to speak with the adult leader in charge of an event, that parent should not be given the run around. Also glad to hear from VentureMom that the situation turned out OK. It also illustrates the importance of holding off on effectively accusing someone of child molestation until all the facts are in. Sounds to me like the unit - both youth and adult leadership - need to work on communication in general.

Nice - a few more: 3 to argue that the light bulb wouldn't have burned out in the first place if more money had been spent on light bulb maintenance rather than professional's salaries 5 to question why the adults are changing the light bulb, rather than the Scouts 1 to blame the light bulb failure on "leadership skills experts" 2 to remind us that light bulbs should be placed no less than 300 feet apart 6 to question the Youth Protection implications of inadequate lighting, and to debate when to call the Scout Executive 3 to ask us where in the G2SS it requires us to have light bulbs at all 4 to wonder whether the Scouts actually care about light bulbs, and why we insist on adequate lighting if it's not something the Scouts want, and we're all in it "for the boys"

I don't really see this as a matter to discuss with the Venturing leader. This is a matter to take straight to the SE. I agree that it certainly sounds like the YP guidelines were interpreted far too loosely in this case, if everything reported ends up being true. And it also sounds like there was some other questionable behavior on the part of this particular leader. But I have to wonder what it is you want the SE to do about it? Remember, volunteers don't really "answer" to professional Scouters, even the SE. The council has very limited investigation and enforcement powers. My guess is that, in the absence of a credible indication that a youth may have actually been harmed in the course of this event, the council is just going to punt the issue back to your CO and committee - as they should, really. Part of the YP guidelines read: "Units are responsible for enforcing Youth Protection policies" - emphasis mine. Point is, the burden for making policies compliant with YP, and enforcing those policies, lies with the individual units. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd start with the crew committee in terms of seeking resolution to your concerns. I think you're concerns are completely, 100% spot-on - based on the information posted here, several very important guidelines were ignored. You're well within your rights to expect an explanation and resolution. But I think the best way to do that is to start at the unit level, and work your way up. If the committee chair doesn't respond appropriately, move on to the COR. If he or she blows you off, move on to the IH (that's the Institution Head of your Chartered Organization - might be the pastor of a parish, a president of a social club, etc.) If that still doesn't work, you can then try your luck with professional Scouters. I think it's also important to remember that many people wrongly associate "Youth Protection violation" with "child abuse." YP actually covers much more than abuse situations. Right now it seems pretty clear that YP policies were violated, but there's currently no indication that any type of abuse or other inappropriate behavior occurred, and it's important to remember that. Ignoring YP is most definitely a Bad Idea, a sign of very poor judgement, and a situation that needs to be swiftly addressed and resolved - but it's also important not to treat a technical violation of policy with actual child abuse.

Yes Yes Yes - this is how Scouting is supposed to work. The latest BSA guidelines, unfortunately, require that adults be present at overnight patrol activities. But I'd definitely recommend that the adults stay far, far away from the youth. Just check in with them a 2 or 3 times over the course of the weekend.

I saw that in the original thread too, but I didn't really read it as the adults "showing off." I think that if patrols are far enough apart (or, at least, if the adults are far enough away from the Scouts) the Scouts shouldn't have much opportunity for hovering at the adult's site during meal times. If hovering becomes a problem, you could try instilling an idea that patrol sites are "private." In other words, you may not enter another patrol's campsite area without express permission from a member of that patrol. That may just be a good idea for other reasons, too. I'm very much in favor of adults limiting themselves to the same budget guidelines and same equipment constraints as the rest of the troop. That doesn't mean that the adults can't eat well, though. In fact, I'd hope that the adults might have an opportunity to "show off" a bit, to the extent that they can demonstrate the quality of meals that can be prepared given the budget and available equipment. Hopefully, they'd follow up by offering recipes and advice on how to prepare that type of meal.

For you to have such a dislike to any district interferance, you must really hate and distrust those who are district members Actually, Moose, I am a district member, complete with the silver loops and everything. But I think the issue is we just have a different idea of what the role of the district should be with regard to the Eagle process. In my opinion, the district should be offering a variety of resources to its units. We'll provide some round table content, some commissioners who can help you out when you ask for it, some fundraising opportunities, some day camps and summer camps and other district-wide events, some recruiting ideas and help, and some training opportunities. If these resources help you with your program - great, that's why they're here. If not, no sweat. So with the exception of the very few things that require district involvement (like the one level of approval on the Eagle Scout project), I don't like to force any unit or individual Scout to alter their program for my sake. I'm really not that important, even with the silver loops ;-) So in a way, you're half right: I do dislike any and all district interference in areas where we have no business - like auditing Eagle Scout projects or summoning Scouts to re-appear before our "board" so we can unapprove and then reapprove a project that we already approved once before. Districts should be resources to enhance an individual unit's program - not tribunals that arbitrarily evaluate and judge advancement or program quality. There's just no basis for a district to do that legitimately.

I guess im missing something in the fact that im not sure how an extra person or so to help out or just poking their head in....ON a day their working anyway....can in anyway cause a problem. Inviting yourself, or showing up uninvited, to ANY event, is just bad manners. If the Scout for some reason invites you to stop by and help out (I don't know why he would) then no problem. But if you're saying the someone from the district HAS to be present to observe an Eagle project... that's sounds like you're adding to the requirements, which is, of course, prohibited. Talk with leaders and meet new people. Not Sure how that Is a bad thing. Ill have to remember meeting people and talking is a bad thing and i shouldnt do it any more. The purpose of the Eagle project is not for you to "talk with leaders and meet new people." The purpose is for the Scout to complete a useful project for an organization - not as an opportunity for district people to network, say hi and be visible. The Scout is not responsible for the added responsibility of "hosting random District person" at his Eagle project. It would be like stopping by a a unit's camping trip unannounced just to say hi and meet people. It's just not appropriate, unless you've been specifically invited. But we also want sombody from our board to double check that things are looking good....easiest place to do this....Eagle Project But that is just quite simply beyond the scope of your responsibilities on the District advancement committee. That is the responsibility of the unit leadership.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

The original thread talks about the role one particular district plays in the Eagle Advancement process. Leaving aside some of the issues specific to that thread (Lone Scouts and registration issues), I'd like to get a feel for what everyone sees as being an appropriate level of District involvement for the Scout's Eagle project. As I've said before, I think the Guide to Advancement is pretty clear about the District's responsibilities - providing a final approval for the Eagle project, and scheduling an Eagle BOR. Most of the "work" and approvals remain at the unit level, though - obviously the Scout himself, but also guidance and signoffs from unit-level adult leadership. I really see that as being the most important - the unit level leadership knows the Scout best, and has worked with the Scout over many years on all sorts of other requirements. I really see the district level as more of a formality, to help ensure that there's some amount of consistency in expectations from unit to unit. I think that specific level of district involvement is necessary and beneficial in the process. But I'm not sure how I feel about some of the other "duties" that some districts have bestowed upon themselves. Notions of "convening boards" to approve or reject projects, retracting approval for projects based on paperwork technicalities, arriving at Eagle Scout project work days and "observing", correcting the behavior of unit leaders or others at this project, etc. At a basic level, this type of behavior just seems to be well outside of the district's "job description" as specified in the Advancement Guidelines, and also can be seen as undermining unit-level leadership, and creating more arbitrary hoops for the Scout to jump through. I just don't see the District as being the "gatekeeper" to the Eagle rank. They can provide some input and guidance for a Scout, supplementing the unit leadership. But ultimately I see the District's role as being quite limited - providing some specific approval for one requirement (the Eagle project), and assisting with setting up the Eagle BOR. I don't see how or why a district should have any more input beyond that. Any thoughts?

Moose - What I'm saying is that Scouts should be treated fairly by the District representative who reviews Eagle projects. I'm not aware of any provision made that allows a district "Eagle Board" to summon a Scout to "re-appear" to re-present a project that the board already approved. To try to force a Scout to do so is unfair. What has changed between the time you approved the project, and right now? Is it only this question as to his registration status, which has already been resolved? How does that affect the quality of his project plan? Why was it approved in the first place if you were concerned about it? It is simply not fair to the Scout to try to force him to re-present his already-approved project to the district - and the Advancement Guidelines don't seem to provide any provision for allowing the District to make this requirement. I'm also not familiar with any provision for the "Eagle Board" to arrive uninvited, unannounced at an Eagle project? At my own Eagle project, any uninvited visitors would have been turned away by the organization I was working for. Sounds like you are all in favor of the Eagle award being handed out like candy whether the boy deserves it or not?.. Why is that? I'm in favor of the Eagle award being handed out to qualified youth who meet the requirements for the award. I'm not in favor of an "Eagle Board" overstepping their duty and authority by giving a Scout a run-around about whether or not his approved project is really approved, showing up uninvited at his Eagle Project, or questioning which program he is registered in. The Guide to Advancement makes it pretty clear as to what the role of the District or Council regarding reviewing Eagle Projects.

Nothing hard and fast. A lot depends on the camp and the program you want to run. Some camps and activities are booked solid a year in advance - others you can register for the week of with no trouble. One thing you may find helpful is to task your Troop Historian with recording all of the outings your troop does, and include feedback useful for the next time you want to plan that outing. Stuff like, "Get reservation in early," or "Campsite floods after a light rain" - things like that.

MIB & Moose - All of this business worrying about registrations seems like it's well outside your duties as they pertain to reviewing and approving Eagle Projects. You're role is limited to assisting the Scout in completing one specific requirement. Concerns over his registration status were (appropriately) handled by the registrar - there's no reason for the advancement committee to worry about it. If hes not registared as a scout an Eagle Project cannot be given to him. SO by stating that way....they do not have legal projects. Who's "giving" an Eagle project to anybody? The Scout makes a proposal, the district either approves or rejects it. The talk about "legal projects" sounds like a technicality - and, as you know, the Guide to Advancement specifically instructs advancement committees NOT to penalize Scouts solely on technicalities. My question is, shouldn't there be a signiture by DE or someone at council level to register as a Lone Scout?.. It is almost like applying to be your own mini troop. Someone should approve if there is a valid reason for signing up to be a lone scout. Good questions, but outside your duties as they pertain to assisting the Scout in completing one specific requirement (ie, the Eagle Project.) And, as you know from reviewing the BSA's material on the Lone Scout program, really the only "valid reason" that is needed to register as a Lone Scout is that the Scout and his family decide that they want to participate in Scouting through the Lone Scout program. It doesn't matter if there's a troop five minutes away or not. The DE really has no say in it - and the advancement committee definitely has no say in it. I understand that the Scout may not be putting in his fair share of work in this case - but surely you've dealt with that before? But I still don't think you're justified in harassing the Scout by summoning him back before your "board" to present a project that you've already approved! I don't blame the council for not "enforcing" this. I have to ask again - what if this was a Scout in a "normal" troop? And for some reason his name wasn't on the most recent charter? Would you handle this the same way? Or be content to just fix the paperwork technicalities and get him registered, and move on? To me, giving this family this much grief over the Lone Scout status is not that much different from harassing a Scout over joining Troop 123 instead of Troop 456. Or challenging a Scout for working on Eagle in a Venturing Crew, rather than in a troop. None of this affects your job at the project approval phase - you either approve the project, or guide the Scout on how to improve it. Other things like registration can be handled by other people.

So I may be wrong, but the role of the District Advancement Committee to provide guidance and ultimately approval for the Eagle Scout project. It's not their role to question or challenge which program a boy is registered in (Boy Scouts vs Varsity vs Venturing vs Lone Scouts), and it's not their role to verify registration status either. It's not really their role to evaluate the Scout on the other Eagle requirements. Just approve the project, or provide feedback on how to improve the project, right? So while I understand that you're not very happy with this Lone Scout situation, (and I can understand why), it doesn't seem like something that your committee should be wrapped up in. Did the Scout already present the project, and did you approve it? If yes, then why are you wanting to "summon" him back before board, to just repeat a bunch of work that he (and you) already did? How does the registration technicality affect his project at all? And why does your committee need to be involved in it - it sounds like it was correctly resolved with the council registrar, right? Can I ask: say this Scout was a Boy Scout from a "normal" troop, and came before your committee. Say you later find that, for some reason, his name wasn't on the current charter, and he's not technically registered. Would you make him jump through a bunch of hoops getting his project re-presented and re-approved and re-everythinged? Or just advise him to get the paperwork straightened out with the Council?