LongHaul

Although I know being CPR certified doesn't make you an expert, do you think its enough? IMO we are not trying to qualify our scouts to administer CPR to the general public on a continual basis. We are trying to provide them with the knowledge and skill to preserve life in an emergency situation. As long as we are teaching proper technique and procedure yes I think that is enough. BSA does not require any formal certification for those teaching any of the skills needed for advancement. Even certifying merit badge counselors is left to the local councils and their respective advancement committees. For Scout thru First Class "qualified" is determined by the Scoutmaster. In the case of teaching CPR I think we need to remember that we administer CPR to dead people. Any assistance we as leaders can provide to enable one of our scouts to return that person to the status of live person is a good thing. LongHaul

IF the IH is issued a membership card and is assigned a BSA registration number then that person is, by definition, registered. In my council membership cards are not issued to the IH just the COR, check to be sure in your council. Bottom line is whether the IH has a BSA registration number not just a card. LongHaul

It has come to my attention that a new version of the Avancement Committee Policies and Procedures publication is out Sept 2006 printing. Anybody got one? Have any of these changes actually been made? LongHaul

I'd say give them all the help you can. When our troop planned it's first High Adventure trip the SM and ASM did the actual work. The PLC was given choices as to route to be hiked but most of the "heavy lifting" was done at the adult level. We "booked" the hike through our Council which runs a High Adventure program at our Summer Camp. We began the hike on a Sunday night and Tuesday morning half the boys wanted to quit. We had an EXCELLANT staff guide who talked with the boys and convinced them to "go till lunch" then "go till dinner" by Wednesday morning the boys were planning the next years hike. When they got back to the troop they were so UP the rest of the boys couldn't wait till next summer. The PLC worked on details off and on all year and we had a great turn out because the boys did the leg work and talked it up between themselves. LongHaul

First off I did not "say" this stuff I "forwarded" information I received and asked if anyone from this forum had attended PTC recently and can confirm this info. As FScouter says until it's in the Advancement Committee Procedures and Policies publication it's just talk. All three of the items referred to in the original post contradict what I see as proper, for lack of a better term. Beginning a badge which has been "discontinued" sounds like an oxymoron to me. If it's discontinued it's discontinued. Getting credit toward Scout advancement for things you did before you became a scout doesn't fly with me either. Putting the burden of "active" on the Troop leadership sounds like the current trend from National but seems counter productive if we are trying to instill values in the youth we serve. Basically Im looking for someone out there that attended the Boy Scout Advancement sessions at PTC this summer. As to adjusting how I interpret these things, Ill wait for the next Advancement Procedures publication before I change anything. LongHaul

Got this from a fellow scouter today. Anyone attend the latest Philmont Training Center Advancement seminar? LongHaul To: SCOUTS-L@LISTSERV. TCU.EDU At our council advancement committee meeting last night, a member of our committee who attended the PTC advancement course this summer presented what was discussed. There were some interesting tidbits (like a scout is allowed to earn *any* MB ever recognized, even if discontinued, but if discontinued, National will not supply the patch and it may not be used for advancement (no count to the 21, not for palms), but may be displayed on the sash if the scout can find the patch). Hopefully Paul Wolf will now add requirements for discontinued badges to the usscouts web site so youth can exercise this option if they desire (of course, they need to find a counselor and use the last published requirements) . Anyway, supposedly the following definition of Active (with sub heading scout spirit) will be added to the Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures in the next edition. This definition is the current definition from National and is only being offered to clarify this often contentious issue. "A Scout will be considered "active" in his unit if he is: 1) Registered in his unit (registration fees are current). 2) Has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons. 3) Is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis." Item three apparently had a great deal of discussion. Units are *expressly* forbidden to use a percentage participation in advancement in any manner (which is how the "scout spirit" part gets in there). For instance, a unit may not say Johnny must attend at least 25% of troop meetings to be considered active (or to have scout spirit). Also, it is the unit leadership's responsibility to actively find out why Johnny is not participating. If the unit leadership does not do so, the unit may not consider the youth to be inactive. The example given was that the unit leadership must repeatedly (the example discussed was three times) attempt to contact the youth to try to encourage more participation and find out the reason for lack of participation. If the lack is due to conflicts or problems, then the unit must still consider him active. If the lack is due to non- interest or unconcern, and the unit is unable to draw Johnny back to participation, only then may the unit consider him to be inactive. There was also clarification of the appeals procedure. An appeal may be had only if a scout is 1) refused a BOR or 2) is refused a rank advancement at a BOR. Since a scout may demand a BOR at any time, then a refusal by a unit to sign off on active (or any other requirement) can be appealable, but only if the youth first demands a BOR and is refused or the BOR turns down his advancement due to the lack of one of the requirements, such as Active above. Another interesting tidbit is that if a web fulfills the Scout requirements prior to his crossover, the scout badge may be given to the Web at his crossover ceremony. Also clarified was what must be done before the 18th b-day and what may be up to six months after. Requirements 1-6 must be done before, all others may be after, including turning in the paperwork.

First up the CO can refuse membership to anyone without having to explain their reasons. We are a private organization and the CO has the final say. In this instance the past history makes it easy for the CO to use safety of the members as a reason and should win any litigation. The most important question however has been raised already, Why does this boy want to come back? Is it the boy who wants to return or is it the parent(s) that want the boy back in Scouting? If the boy wants a second chance Id have to say give it to him. The boy left on his own so what ever happened did not result in his being expelled, the choice to return should still be his. Influencing young people is what we are about, it sounds as though this boy needs positive influence. LongHaul

Over and over we have discussed and debated the meet the requirements as written, no additions or omissions. The requirement states that the project should not be done until the 4 specific signatures are obtained. How does the scout and scouting in general benefit if we as leaders allow boys to circumvent the requirements. MinnSm first says the DAC wrote, and used quotation marks which would indicate exact wording, go ahead but with these changes but in a later post used the phrase again in quotes would certainly qualify. The first could be interpreted as approval but the second? The question remains did the scout receive approval of the DAC before he started his project? The actions of the DAC would indicate that the DAC does not think so. Do we force the DAC to include a disclaimer or qualifier to all his correspondence and verbal conversations to indicate that these do not necessarily constitute consent or approval? If a scout says to the DAC I want to repair and renovate the war memorial in front of city hall and the DAC says That sound like a great project. Did the scout just get approval to begin the project? What I see as the question here is what constitutes prior approval? Have other scouts been allowed to begin on a verbal or email OK? Do we have past practice on this? The fact that none of us wants to deny a scout advancement if the intent of the requirements were met should not take precedent over the actual requirements. Why is the Eagle Project Workbook written to require the 4 signatures before beginning? What are we trying to teach or develop in the scout with this project? Is failure to receive prior approval a deal breaker? I recommend appealing the actions or decision of the DAC as far up the chain as is necessary to obtain a definitive ruling as to whether prior approval was indeed given AND/OR whether the scout was in a position to believe he, the scout, had received prior approval when in fact the DAC did not intend his mail or conversation to be taken as formal approval. LongHaul

There is a reason SMs and ASMs are not supposed to sit on BORs, they are too close to the action so to speak. The BOR is not supposed to be a rehash but a quality control to see that all requirements have been met. Lisabob, what do you see as your responsibility as a member of the BOR? Are you too close to the action to be impartial as to whether the requirements have been met? You say; I personally would have a very hard time agreeing to advance, based on their behavior over the last few months (both toward other younger/smaller boys and issues regarding honesty, responsibility, leadership). You apparently witnessed this behavior when it happened, what did you do at the time? If you handled the incident then it has been dealt with and should not be used against the boy at the BOR. If you sat on the board and declined to advance this scout what would be his method of correcting the deficiency you see in him? How could he correct the problem? Shouldnt this have been the outcome of the original incident? Your dissatisfaction seems to be with the SM and how the SM is delivering program. What the standards are that the SM is setting. Is the BOR the place to deal with this issue? LongHaul

LisaBob, If the den meets and the boy does not participate the WDL has to decide what percentage of attendance constitutes active. If however the den does not meet then the boy has attended 100% of the meetings. If the boy does everything asked of him he should not be punished. The entire den in question did meet in July for Day Camp and again in August for a scheduled den meeting so the question becomes can advancement occur during June if the den is not meeting? You cant be non active and advancing so the requirement needs to be rewritten to read Be an active member of an active Webelos Den for 3 months. As long as the boy attends when the WDL holds meetings, the boy should not be held accountable if the WDL does not hold a meeting in a given month. LongHaul

All Bear leaders should take note of this thread and not make the same mistakes. The Den in question became Webelos Scouts on 5/20/2006, 5/20/2006 becoming day one for the purpose of rank advancement as this would be the first day a boy could begin working on Webelos Rank advancement. No where does it say that advancement must be completed as a den, in fact the Fitness Activity badge has quite a few requirements which are to be completed with a family member. If a boy begins working on any of the requirements for any of the Activity Pins he is active. If the Den does not meet in a given month then the boy has attended all of the meetings for that month! If no dues were collected he has paid all den dues required. If there were no den projects then he has worked on all of them. This boy is batting 1.000! The concept that a boy cant be active until all the adults are ready to begin is incorrect. Encourage every boy to look over the requirements which can be done at home and presented to the WDL for review. If a boy is on an organized baseball team all summer why shouldnt it count toward Sportsman because the den didnt meet over the summer, provided the boy follows the requirements and the WDL is aware of the activity before it is done? The boys attended Day Camp and worked on Citizen what more does it take to be active? Think of it this way; did every Webelos Den suddenly become inactive in New Orleans when Katrina hit? Did all clocks for advancement stop? Did they stop being Scouts? My vote is 5/20/06 first possible date for Webelos Badge being 8/21/06. LongHaul

Hunt asked for an actual example and I have one. Two years ago we had some scouts participate in a Merit Badge Day at a local Navy Base. One of the badges offered was Law, the MBC was a Naval officer. The man spent 2 hours telling war stories about what it was like to be in the military police and his time in Naval intelligence. The actual requirements for the merit badge were never even discussed during this time. All the Blue Cards were returned signed as complete. When the SM and TC heard of this they arranged for a lawyer, who was not a MBC, to talk with the boys about the requirements before the badges were awarded. Two parents came forward and complained because advancement was being held up. Their position was the boys attended the class in good faith and if the MBC failed to do the job the boys should not be punished by having the badges withheld. One parent said "If I sign up for training and attend the class but the staff does not cover the correct material I should not be penalized and asked to give up more of my time to retake the class." Two boys took the badge and the rest met with the lawyer before receiving theirs. Not being SM for this particular troop I had no say in the matter. LongHaul

The Owasippe Staff Assoc invested $5,000 this year into the restoration and upgrading of the Stephen Fossett Sailing Base Outpost? The fleet is now up to 13 vessels with two more on the way by the Spring of 2007. The volunteer base in CAC has not given up on Owasippe and continues to provide an excellent program. Our troop has attended every year since we formed. Owasippe also offers a challenging High Adventure Program of hiking and canoeing in the Manistee National Forest. LongHaul

commandopro Thought you forgot about this thread, havent checked in a while, sorry. Bottom line, cookie cutter professionals? A snappy retort, but not altogether useful. Perfectly useful in that it accurately expresses the image you project. You have a bottom line, you have something you believe should trump all other concerns. If the bottom line means serving as many youth as we can will a high quality program, implemented by large numbers of dedicated and trained volunteers, while recognizing the fiscal realities of the world, then count me in. Cookie Cutter comes in at this point because you parrot the National party line which is TOTALLY non descriptive. What program? Just what is the program you advocate? DONT quote National dogma but give me examples of what program means. Serve is NOT synonymous with registered. Failing to provide Traditional programming to those who are providing, or are responsible for, the resources in order to provide in school services to those who have not invested one thing into a program just to insure larger numbers is not serving the youth. It is serving the interests of those interested in maintaining a faade and insuring their collective positions. This is why you seldom hear your view points and positions delivered by tenured scouting volunteers. As far as ideology, I believe we share one ideology across this great organization. That is the Scout Oath and Law. I would love to hear hear how dramatically different the Scouters in Naperville, Barrington Heights, Deerfield and the Northside are. I have a feeling that anything you name would be quite superficial at best. Now, there is a very real difference between those areas and the core of the city. The problem: The core of the city faces challenges in program delivery that it cannot meet without the cooperation and resources of the surrounding area. Unlike you I have lived in this area since I was born and have been part of the Scouting program in this area since 1957. I was here when we had a scout troop in almost every church and school in what you refer to as the core of the city. I was here when the ethnic make up of that core changed. I was here when the existing group of dedicated and trained volunteers tried to involve the residents of the core of the city in our program. I have been here as resource after resource has been utilized to fund programs the residents of the core of the city just plain dont want to participate in. We literally cant give Scouting away in the core of the city. So rather than concentrate on those who are interested in our program we change our program, repackage it, and rename it. The program you want all the surrounding councils and communities to fund and support in the core of the city is Learning for Life. The after school, in school, baby sitting program designed to allow whole classes of youth to be signed up in an effort to produce numbers. We market this program to the schools as a franchise type program which National collects fees on a per student basis. There is no camping, no advancement, no patrol method, no youth run, no Oath and Law but its SCOUTING because National recognizes the fiscal realities of the world. LFL as a stand alone program would not survive. It requires the resources and fund raising potential of the 95 year old Traditional Scouting Program. Its the camps and assets traditional scouting has generated which are being used to fund the core of the city program which is non traditional. In 1965 CAC had six local camps and approximately 10,000 acres in Michigan which supported 8 camps. These have been relinquished or sold outright and most of the monies have been spent. National tried to take the out out of scouting in the 1970s IT DIDNT WORK. Our number dropped and have never recovered. Program change was not the only reason our number dropped but it was significant in that we lost support we could never replace. The need to have the surrounding councils support CAC is the result of mismanagement, malfeasance, and lack of TRADITIONAL PROGRAM which is what provided the working capitol in the first place. Our current SE has a higher salary than the mayor of Chicago only because CAC is allowed to use LFL numbers to inflate membership. It is about salary and jobs not service to youth. If he were paid according to traditional enrollment he would not be here and the current problems would not be problems they would have been addressed 15 years ago and CAC would still have its two biggest camps. Turning this area into a super council would not change the problem of delivering traditional program to the core of the city. If this core of the city program is so great why is it that core of the city people will not support it? Why does it need Traditional Scouting help? Where is the LFL dedicated and trained volunteer base? Where is the LFL FOS program? Where is the yard stick by which we can judge the effect and success of the LFL program? Again I plead Leave us alone we have enough problems already. LongHaul

Perhaps I should have said Awarded instead of Earned. Ultimately, the badge was awarded and the BOR can't take the merit badge away. The BOR can't even withhold rank advancement because a merit badge requirement wasn't completed to their satisfaction (or completed at all). This is one of those instances where the way the merit badge was taught/examined needs to be addressed with the MBC or Council. The requirements for Star, Life and Eagle all contain one requirement which begins Earn --- merit badges. At what point are we as leaders allowed to apply the accurate definition of the word earn; earn  urn -verb (used with object) 1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living. 2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned. 3. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty. 4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest. 5. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence. Should National rewrite all the merit badge requirements to have only one actual requirement that being 1. Obtain an Application for Merit Badge form signed by an approved Merit Badge Counselor for the badge being applied for certifying that you have done the following.? Lets take this one more step what if a scout presents you with a signed Blue Card for a merit badge you didnt issue a Blue Card for? Is it now not earned because you didnt sign it first? Careful now, separate procedure from requirement! The MBC shouldnt sign a card not properly issued but then they shouldnt sign cards for requirements not performed either. If a boy in your troop that you know for a fact is a non swimmer presents you with a signed card for Lifesaving thats acceptable and will be recorded on an advancement form and awarded? Do we say No you didnt follow procedure its invalid? The current merit badge requirements all are presented in such a manner s to imply that the scout is required to do specific tasks, not get credit for specific tasks, actually do those tasks. Getting credit for requirements not actually done is following procedure? I would not take the signed Blue Card away from the scout he would forever have a signed Blue Card but that is all he would have. LongHaul

CalicoPenn, then exactly what is the purpose of a BOR at levels above First Class? To second guess the SM? If we can't assure ourselves that the merit badges have indeed been earned then the signatures of the troop personel who attest to the tenure, service and sirit of this scout are the only things which come into question? If we can deny an Application for Eagle why not an APPLICATION for merit badge? LongHaul P.S. First you say that if an MBC signes the card as complete that the boy EARNED the badge but in closing you say that we can express our dissappointment if a lad recieves a badge he didn't earn. Which is it? I think you realize that just getting an MBC to sign doesn;t mean you earned the badge.(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

First let us remember that a Blue Card is an "APPLICATION for merit badge". In order to qualify to apply for the badge a scout must present a completed merit badge application (Blue Card). As SM, I sign the cards when they are first issued and again when they are returned completed, before I forward them to my advancement chair. If I have a problem with how or why a MBC signed a card as complete I don't sign the card the second time and the APPLICATION halts right there. A scout has the option of appealing to the troop committee, and/or the district advancement board to over ride my action. Giving a scout credit for a badge he knows he did not earn, IMO, is a greater evil than possibly breaking the rule against adding or altering a requirement. My answer to Ed would be to not list the badge on an advancement report until completed properly. The other solution is to wait till the boy comes up for a BOR and then reject him because he didn't complete the badge. We have discussed at length the responsibility of the BOR to assure that all requirements have been completed. The only issue I can see is credibility, am I sure he did not complete the requirements as written? In Lisas case if the system is set up to limit the badges earned to 6 per session applying for 8 should be enough to hold up an application. We take people at their word but when we know that their word can not be taken as valid we have a responsibility to the youth we serve. On my honor should never mean as long as I dont get caught or as long as I can beat it in court. LongHaul

We used this system at Philmont on several occasions. Lashed walking sticks together using boot laces for the staves but had to triple stake the pivot point because you can't tie off to live trees at Philmont. Kept the cooks dry. LongHaul

Not if the pick-up has a plexiglass cap and the statinary bike has a seat belt!

CalicoPenn writes "Only a Scout who starts a badge before new requirements are issued may use the old requirements - once new requirements are issued, a Scout starting the badge must use the new requirements." The concern in the original post was when a New MBP is issued before the Requirements Book is revised and no National advisory has been issued. The Requirements Book is the standard even if new requirements are issued in the form of a new MBP. Again the important thing is that the decision to change rests with the scout. Requiring a scout to redo requirements already completed under an older set of requirements is the MBCs decision. Technically if a boy decides to use the new requirements instead of the requirements he started under his partial is void. Most MBCs I work with will accept work completed that fulfils the intent of the requirement. LongHaul

John-in-KC, First remember that ussscouts.org is NOT run by National. The info may be correct but it is not coming from National direct. The Requirements Book #33215 is the official National standard. What the site says, and actually it is correct in that Nationals position is just as the site says on this issue, is that the Requirements book is the standard. New Merit Badge Pamphlets are printed as stock at National supply demands. When a badge has been revised and new pamphlets need to be printed National prints the new revision not the old edition. Because of this practice it is possible, though rare, that a scout will obtain a Merit Badge Pamphlet which has a newer set of requirements than those published in the then current Requirements Book. Normally it is very difficult to obtain New Editions before Jan 1 as the old editions are sold until National Supply runs out even after Jan 1 in some cases. When a revision is made so late in a year that revising the Requirements book is no longer possible National has issued mid year change advisories because the old pamphlets are discontinued and the new revision will be available before Jan 1 of the next year. Ive had to order new editions straight from National Supply in order to get a Pamphlet which matched the Requirements book. In the rare case where a scout presents a MBC with a newer edition the scout has the option of using either the new or the old requirements but NEVER a combination. Revision daters are written on the inside back cover of the Merit Badge Pamphlet and the Requirements Book. The important point in all this is that the choice of which requirements to use rests with the scout not the MBC. LongHaul

Cycling Merit Badge on a stationary bike! If a boy can get Personal Management with a budget of all zeros why not cycling with a route of a single point? Or Hiking in a Mall or on a track. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Dan, The original post spoke about the collateral damage being done in the name of tolerance. It referred to the BSA losing its offices in Philly and to schools being forced to accept gay couples with regard to housing. It was not about whether gay marriages should be legal or not. The school would not necessarily have to be opposed to gay marriage just apposed to having gay couples living in school provided housing. I dont care if Gays marry, I dont view marriage in the same light as some do. I see it as a bond between two people. There are marriages of love, of convenience, of necessity. The governmental recognition of those unions IMO has nothing to do with the union itself it has to do with governmental and societal allowances with respect to the union. Should Gays be allowed to enter into a union recognized as equal to FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL STANDING a heterosexual union YES! Should a Condo Association be able to exclude them from living in their community again YES. Gays shouldnt be denied insurance, recognition of their union by various states, the right to fill joint tax returns. They also shouldnt be allowed to impose their views, customs, and opinions on others. If a community does not accept a gay union as being equal to a straight union FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE then nothing can force them to change and seeking legal sanctions only strengthens the separation. Gays are trying to force their beliefs on society in excess of gaining equality they demand acceptance and I see the two things as different. If I saw two men making out I would have a conditioned reaction, if I saw a man and a woman making out I would have a conditioned reaction, they wouldnt be the same! I should be allowed this difference without ridicule if the couples in question wish to enjoy the same treatment. My oldest son has a friend who has enough body piercings that it actually makes my skin crawl to be in the same room. I dont counsel my son not to associate with this person, my son is 25 were he 12 it would be a different story. I accept this mans right to express himself and he should accept my right to be repulsed by his expression. LongHaul

As A Camping Merit Badge Counselor let me tell you how I read the req.#9 with reference to the camp having tents already set up. What Camp? The reference to previously set up tents follows the statement that a boy can use a week of long-term camping in compiling his list of 20 nights. The pre set up tents refers, IMO, to the long term camping provision. LongHaul

Way to go MOM! A Scouter is Brave. LongHaul