NACAP

FOS donations happen when people believe they are getting some value from the council. When Customer Service (we are the customer, not the other way around) and Communications are unsatisfactory, Programs are substandard or get cancelled and the units are blamed, it is very likely these folks will choose to retrench and donate to their unit. Since the unit is not allowed to look for a better service provider even in the adjoining council, they only use the council for the absolute minimum.

Contrary to what the council is telling you, they council won't be able to verify and enter the rank, and if they try to send it to National for manual posting, they won't be able to process it. And they will not issue credentials for a Scout who wasn't registered.

The national Advancement Team requested the four historic merit badges be taken down because some Scouts were continuing to earn them. They did not realize that the Internet Advancement software would also delete the badges from Scouts records. That wasnt supposed to happen. Since reprograming Internet Advancement isnt really an option at this point, they plan to add the merit badges back into the system. IA will eventually be replaced by advancement functionality that will be added to the new Unit Tools.

This is a serious issue!!! The only thing that would happen is that Twinkies would have to be made by another baker so we can take them on campouts!!!

2cub...I am of the same philosophy about the gate. I didn't mean to imply that I grab my scouts around the neck and force them through the gate. Your words...coaching etc are right on. Our unit by no means checks the box and we have a number of scouts who take their own initiative to bring their books in every meeting, ask for blue cards, hit the library to get a MB Pamphlet and yes even request a SMC and BOR. Advancement is clearly the most emotional of the scouting methods as it's probably the one that folks feel they can "control". You do not see this approach in the Cub/Venture program's advancement. Have you sent your recommendations to advancement.team@scouting.org?

eisely...EBOR serve a great purpose to me. A great chance to sit with a stellar young man and have a conversation with him about goals he's achieved and goals on his horizon and beyond. In other words the EBOR makes me feel good about our country's future. Can it get to be a bit too much of an administrative nightmare with references, absolutely! 2cub...yes some of the GTA was worded in the way that favors the youth and gives them a chance against so-called leaders who think they are and should be barriers to keep scouts from passing through the gates instead of being on the other side of the gate pulling their scouts through. If you had the chance to see the large number of cases of so-called leaders who claim to be helping their scouts when in fact they are doing just the opposite, steam would come out of your ears. Scouts were sort of helpless if the SM said you can't have a BOR even if they had completed all the requirements and had a SMC until I say so and were extremely unlikely to take him on. Please don't forget to read the rest of the sentence you refer to in 8.0.0.2...SMs can't defer a BOR or add to the requirements to keep the scout from having one. Since SMs are charged with determining if a scout is ready for a BOR at the SM conference, he is naturally the one who would pass this info on to the AC for scheduling. If you have a better way to word any of the GTA, please forward them to advancement.team@scouting.org. Thanks. (This message has been edited by NACAP)

Frankly, we should just drop the reference ruse completely. They mean nothing. Who's going to list a bad reference in the first place? And if one sneaks through, what could they say which would change the outcome. If the requirements are complete, if the boxes are checked, it's a done deal. Asking for reference is clearly adding to the requirements. FYI...I did recommend that as part of my GTA review. I will say I received one so-so recommendation once...it was fromt he parents!! Go figure.

eisely...IMHO...you should never, ever get to an EBOR where the scout is there and defer a decision due to lack of something the scout has no control over. In your 1st para, the procedure in that case is par 8.0.3.2 Requesting an EBOR under disputed circumstances. I'm in the middle of one of those right now.

eisely: While this might be a rare occurence, if you did what you are suggesting, you are adding to the requirements and the scout could appeal and he would win. The Scout's requirement is to provide names/contact info on his application and that's it. Also you are not allowed to hold up an EBOR for lack of responses to the council's requests from his references. I've held EBORs with as few as one response.

Letters are not required to hold an EBOR. The Scout is only required to list his references on his application, hence no mention of letters or method of collection on his application. Don't know why you would think references would be mentioned in the Project workbook. Councils determine the method of contacting the references listed. GTA reference is para 9.0.1.7.

eolesen...not sure how old this young man is but if he completed all the requirements including his POR, he would not have needed to do that again at his new troop. Was there an issue on whether or not he had completed his POR?? If he completed all Eagle Requirements prior to his 18th birthday he is entitled to a BOR regardless if the SM signed off on it or not. Have him fill out his Eagle Scout Application and have him bring it down with any other documentation (project book etc) to his council office. Ask to see the Scout Executive and explain the circumstances.(This message has been edited by NACAP)

I do Mock BORs all the time except I call them Scoutmaster Conferences.

Yep..I disagree given echaney's posting of other unspeakable things (undefined) and the BSA defining bullying as deliberate and hurtful. If the scout left the troop over his treatment and if this guy is to the point that others are walking out, then maybe he is bullying. He is in the power position over the youth. Disagreement over an extracurricular project? Sound like more than that to me but I don't have the entire Paul Harvey story here. Most times we do not. He's certainly can take any of our advice and proceed on his own. What's the next thing this guy is going to do to other scouts? This is a pattern of behavior. It seems that if all the folks know about this guy, it's time to take some definite action. A friendly call or appointment with the SE is not an inappropriate action IMHO.

echaney...if all is as you said in your initial post, it is unfortunate and not a common occurence. This is not an Advancement Issue, this is a Youth Protection Issue and the SM's bullying is a clear violation and you should inform the Scout Executive that you intend to pursue this to the National Office unless he takes the appropriate action he is required to do. The YPT link is provided. From what you've said, I found more than one policy that is not being followed by this so called leader. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx As stated by others, there are other remedies for the EP if it was approved by all signators before he started.(This message has been edited by NACAP)

I know there are some items that need to be reworded/clarified. The Advancement team's Twitter Account has been used to send out some of those until the 2013 update. Suggestions must/shall/should/could/may :-) be sent to advancement.team@scouting.org