NeilLup

"This is weird to write but "Baden Powell" is just plain wrong about Commissioners, their role, the fact that they are indeed directly commissioned by BSA, and just about everything else he's asserted regarding Commissioners and their role in BSA." Hard to believe but the writings of BP are not inspired holy writ. The founder can, on occasion be incorrect. Two other thoughts: 1) BP was writing about Commissioners as they were in the UK, not in the BSA which is structurally very, very different 2) BP was writing about Commissioners as they were in the UK in the 1910-1920 time frame, not as they are in the BSA in 2008. Great that you had a chance to be with Tico. He's a very special guy.

There's a saying in Boy Scout training: "If you send a monkey to training, you get a trained monkey." Somewhat of a corollary to that is: If you put a Scout leader uniform on a helicopter parent or snowplow parent, you get a helicopter or snowplow parent wearing a Scout leader uniform. If you put a Scout leader uniform on someone who is Machiavellian or someone who likes to be the "big cheese", you get the big cheese or Machiavelli wearing a Scout leader uniform. The point is that what you are seeing is not "Scouting" other than in the sense that Scouting uses local adults and volunteers. It is the particular Pack in your local area. The smallest working group in Cub Scouting is a den. In all seriousness, you and your friends can establish a den, you can have chartered a one den Pack as a starting place and have the opportunity to have your sons benefit from Cub Scouting as you think it reasonably should be. But Scouting isn't for everybody and not every Pack is a Pack which is right for you and your son. That's a judgement that you need to make. But I would suggest that before you decide to just leave, contact your local council office and talk to the District Executive about your concerns. They may not be aware of the situation and even if you leave, they will appreciate knowing your observations and it may give them information needed to work with and improve the Pack.

There is one other possible leadership position. Not saying that it is a good idea, just an idea. If he is registered as a Venturer, he can be a Den Chief, I believe up to age 21. But I would suggest, as you have, that he either be an ACM or ADL. My thought would be that it would be more impressive to the Cub Scouts if he is an ACM. He still, as an ACM, can assist with a Den or two if he so chooses.

What a wonderful trust and challenge. I hope that you are able to entrust it to your son or, if that is now possible, to some other young man who stands to be a superb Eagle Scout. I believe that I have told the story of a young man who graduated a few years ago from the school in our council which has red as its color and name that begins with "H". He did a spectacular job in our council, organized the Scouter's organization at this school, organized a Merit Badge University for our council and built it to 400 participants, served on Wood Badge staff and currently runs the "First Year Camper" sections at camp school for the Northeast Region. We selected him (at age 24) to receive the Silver Beaver. In my opinion, richly deserved. I was speaking with his parents who flew from Atlanta to Boston for the ceremony. They told me that his paternal grandfather had received the Silver Beaver and his maternal great grandfather had received the Silver Beaver in the early 1930s. The family still had the award. So they brought it and we were able to invest our young man with the Silver Beaver which his great grandfather had received over 70 years earlier. I hope that he someday has a great grandson who will proudly wear that award. If so, it may be in the 22nd century.

One of which I was rather proud. When our former SE retired in the mid '80s, a number of us gave money to create a fund in the council endowment in his name. Once a year, at our council's annual meeting, this award in his name is presented to a member of the professional staff who has done a particularly good job of exemplifying the professional service and the Oath and Law. The award is name listed on a plaque plus a sum of money to sent the recipient to a training course (not necessarily BSA) which they would otherwise not be able to attend.

Hello Tami, You probably don't want to hear this, but patrol patches are for youth only. That is not saying that I have not seen adults permanently wearing them. Until about 10 years ago, participants in Wood Badge sewed patrol patches on their Wood Badge uniform. The patches were supposed to be removed after the course. Some times they were. I believe that, if you wish, you can wear your Bob White patrol patch as a temporary patch on the right pocket. The great news is that you're a Bob White. It doesn't get any better than that! NeilLup Loquatious Bob White R-12-25 (1970)

" At our summer camp, a program area director signed the blue cards, but in many cases, a much younger Scout actually led the classes (Indian Lore, Safety, Nature, etc). I thought our boys were short-changed in some of them because of the young, less-experienced class leaders (a Scout only slightly older than the attendees). It was a lot of reading from the book. " If you read the autobiography of Prof. E.O. Wilson, a Distinguished Eagle Scout, Distinguished Professor at Harvard, popularizer of the term 'biodiversity", 2 time Pulitzer Prize winner and listed by Time Magazine in the mid '90s as one of the 25 most influential Americans, you will learn that he says that his entire career in studies of nature, etc. started in 1944 when, at the age of 14, he was Nature Director of his Scout camp because all the men were at war. I somehow suspect that the Scouts who learned from E.O. Wilson weren't short-changed. If the younger instructors were just reading from the book, that's one thing. However, at the age of 14-15, I was an instructor in Junior Leader Trainings, etc. I took it VERY seriously and tried to do an outstanding job. With proper motivation, training and enablement, I would imagine that many of these younger staff members would do so also.

"One other thought - No one is EVER going to question your personal integrity for not reporting something someone else did. People will however, question your motives if you make an issue out of every little thing that might not be "by the book". If a scouter is not in imminent danger, what good does it do to make an issue out of it at the time it occurs? Might be better to use it as a teaching moment at a later date... Next campout prep, put out "Just a reminder regarding sleeping arrangements....and this applies to EVERYONE !!" Or it can be a topic of character development discussions with your scouts.... If they ask, you have a teachable moment about how hard it can be to have integrity, even as an adult. " Hello Dean, I agree with almost all of your excellent post. However, on your first point, there are the eloquent words of Pastor Niemoeller: "First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." However, the point that you are making that there are times to speak out and times not to is exceedingly accurate. As I implied in an earlier post, the "Pick a little, talk a little" gossip of the Music Man is something very different from what Pastor Niemoeller is talking about. Commenting on other people's private lives seem to me to be very much an area where it is very easy to stray into gossip and where one's personal integrity will not be questioned for not commenting on what someone else did. That gets to your second point. I am not sure to whom the "Just a reminder about sleeping arrangements" would be addressed. If to Scouts, it would probably go over most heads with a few "nudge, nudge, do you know what he's talking about? Yuk, yuk yuk" among the older Boys. If to adults, reminding them of the guidelines in broad enough terms that it isn't pointed but rather is just a check of proper behavior, then that probably will do the job nicely. But one would need to be careful not to have it be a "zinger" interpreted as a shot at a particular individual deemed to be an offender.

Hello ancientdruid, Some time when you have several free days, you might read all the back posts in this forum on exactly the topic you have discussed. The gentle question you have very appropriately asked will likely, again, provoke the reaction among posters of raw meat again thrown to wolves with sundry wolves on all sides. To answer what I believe that the National BSA guidelines are for advancement: 1) A Troop may not impose, particularly after the fact, percentage attendance requirements on active service, leadership, etc. If the Scout is registered and the Troop is making an effort to stay in touch with the Scout he is meeting the requirement. 2) Also note that the Scout does not need to meet the activity requirement and the leadership requirement in the time immediately before he goes for Eagle Scout. If he met them years ago, while a Life Scout and then becomes much less active for a lengthy period of time, he still has met the requirement of activity and leadership. 3) An extremely important principle is "no surprises." If the Troop would plan to turn the Scout down based on active service or leadership, the Scout should know this well in advance and have an opportunity to address it. A large part of the reason for the rules which can be troubling is the number of cases where a boy has been cruising toward Eagle Scout fat, dumb and happy only at the Board to be told "We don't think that you were sufficiently active." This should never be a surprise to the boy and his parents. 4) A boy does not need to "pass" the Scoutmaster Conference, just participate in it. If the SM thinks he is not ready to become an Eagle Scout, the boy can still demand a Board of Review and it will be granted. There is no guarantee that this Board will approve his Eagle. The Scoutmaster can share with the Board his concerns about the Scout and why he believes that the Scout does not meet the Scout Spirit requirements. 5) If the Scout accepts the Scoutmaster's opinion on his Scout Spirit, the SM should outline what the Scout needs to do to improve and meet the standard. He should be trying to help the Scout. 6) If the boy goes before the Board and is not approved based on Scout Spirit, the board must, in writing, give him the reasons for the non-approval and must list a series of actions which would enable the Scout to meet the standard. This can be a problem or even an impossibility for Scouts who are pushing the age 18 deadline. They must also explain to the Scout his rights to appeal the non-approval first to the local council and then to the National council. If the non-approval for Eagle is based on some percentage attendance requirement imposed by the Troop, it is at one of these appeals that the appeal will be approved and the boy will become an Eagle Scout. However, if the non-approval is based on well founded lack of Scout Spirit, then the appeal will most likely not be successful. This kind of situation seems to happen all the time. It is unpleasant for all concerned. It is particularly unpleasant when the non-approval appears justified but the appeal is approved because the Troop did not substantiate the failure of the Scout to meet the requirements.

"So, it would be great if we could clarify this fact or even answer the ever pending question regarding if a DE would typically have a Morality clause in his contract. " Very interesting question. I looked up "morals clauses" (not being an attorney myself) and learned that they are very case and fact specific. I would wonder what the "morals clause" for a professional Scouter might comprise. a) Not violating the Guide to Safe Scouting - I'm not sure I'd sign that. I'd hate to be fired for driving after dark at a Scout event. b) Not committing a crime - That sounds pretty reasonable but I don't believe that any of the things we have been discussing is a crime c) Not violating the Ten Commandments - There can be some real debate on that d) Not violating "community standards" - That would seem to warrant a paid subscription to "Lawsuit times" I believe that most employees are "at will" employees meaning that they have no contractual protection but that there may be certain reasonable expectations about what will happen in terms of a performance or conduct problem -- progressive discipline with an oral warning, written warning, suspension followed by termination. I know that the BSA is very careful with its employees and I know of employees being given warnings and put on probation. In short, the Scout Executive likely has to act in a reasonable, progressive manner if there is a problem. It certainly is appropriate to comment to a professional if one believes their conduct is inappropriate or is detracting from their service and then to comment to their boss, but the result will not be a public humiliation like the opening scene in the old TV show "Branded" where the person was stood at attention, the buttons and insignia were ripped off his shirt, his sword was broken over his commander's knee and he was expelled from the post. The result will likely not even be a termination in the short term.

"Neil..., So, are you saying it IS our (the vounteer at the unit level) place to call someone on a rules infraction?" Hello ASM59, I have the feeling that if you and I went out for ice cream, we would select different flavors. I don't believe that I said that it is the place of a unit level volunteer to call someone on a rules infraction. Nor did I say that it is NOT their place. I believe that I said that based on my experience and as a practical matter it is more a function of the personalities of the individuals than the badges that they wear on their sleeves. To me, conferring with someone's boss is not calling someone out, particularly if it is done in a friendly manner. I don't care who gave him permission. That is for his boss to determine. Depending upon the exact personalities of the individuals involved, I might say, doing my best to be Friendly, Courteous and Kind: 1) To the individual "I don't want to be a pain or a busybody and I want to do everything I can to help and support you. My understanding of the Guide to Safe Scouting is that only married persons should have joint sleeping quarters. I wanted to be sure you were aware of that and weren't unintentionally doing something outside the Guide to Safe Scouting" or 2) To the person's boss "I don't want to be a pain or a busybody and I want to do everything I can to help support you, the professional staff and the council. My understanding of the Guide to Safe Scouting is that only married persons should have joint sleeping quarters. Am I missing something with the situation at Cub Scout day camp? I really want to be sure that our professional staff is as effective as possible and there isn't anything that potentially is negatively impacting their effectiveness and credibility." Maybe to you, that's calling out. To me, done privately, it's not. I would add one other thought that I had last night. If I do this and I get an answer of "I really don't think that it's that big a thing." I have two Scouting acceptable choices at that point: escalate or shut up. I do NOT have the option of bringing it up to every volunteer at my level who will listen and saying "Do you knooooooooow what is going on at Cub Scout Day Camp. The Camp Director is living in siiiiiiiiiin. We've got Trouble. Right here in Cub Scout Day Camp. With a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for Cub Scout." That would be a total violation of Courteous, Kind, Friendly, etc. I must either raise my concern/objection responsibly or cease publicizing my concern/objection.

"We talked about 3 of the 4 men that have been to Wood Badge in this Stake doing a little orientation session for the large group of participants. Not to blow the contents of the course and send them overly prepared, but just to alleviate any fears or concerns, and get them excited." At one time (pre 2001), there was a 30 day meeting prior to the course and a 90 day meeting after the course. When the course was revised in 2001, these were eliminated. Strictly eliminated and no longer permitted. The time permitted to be spent in the course was strictly limited also as Scout Executives had been believing that Wood Badge was taking too much time of staff and participants for the good to Scouting that it did. As far as how to prepare, you should have gotten some preparatory material from the course. Read it and think through the matters covered there. If you wish, go through again the training which is available for your position on-line. But don't get shook. Wood Badge is a training course. The staff is prepared to work with participants with all possible levels of preparation. Just be sure that they know where you are at.

"2/ What is going to be done? I don't have the answer to that. It would seem that the people who are empowered to answer it have all the information. (snip) If a policeman pulls him over, he can decide if he wants to give the guy a ticket or not. That's his job. " It would seem that within the lines of Eamonn's excellent post is the crux of the problem here: The problem is not did the DE do something contrary to the Guide to Safe Scouting. Clearly he did. The problem would seem to be that, as Eamonn has said, the people with authority to do something about it have all the information and have chosen not to do anything. In Eamonn's words, have chosen not to give him a ticket. For whatever reason. The DE indicated that he has permission for his sleeping arrangements. We can only speculate what the DE would have done if his management had said "We really think that you and your fiancee should have separate sleeping arrangements." But while some posters believe that the DE's sleeping arrangements are inherently immoral, other posters are not that bothered. It certainly is not extravagantly outside the bounds of behavior that many engaged persons in their 20s in 2008 would consider appropriate and "moral." So the question would seem to be not what one should say to the DE but rather what one should say to his boss or to whomever gave him permission. I have had that kind of discussion in Scouting and elsewhere many times over the years. In almost all occasions, the boss had very good reasons for what they did. In some cases, the boss was unaware of the ramifications of their decisions and appreciated my comments. Sometimes, the boss suggested that I talk with the person in question or that we have a 3 way conversation. In some cases, the boss and I disagreed on the significance. At that point, I had the choice of further escalation or choosing to fight another day.

"So if it is not my place or anyone elses place to point out that someone is breaking the rules, whose place is it? Who is there to be the BSA rule breaker police?" To look for a moment at the swamp we started out to drain, I believe that the answer begins at the beginning of the Scout Oath. "On MY honor, I will do MY best." It's not like speeding in your car where it's the job of a cop to police you and if you don't get caught, no harm, no foul. Rather, by voluntarily undertaking the obligation of the Scout Oath and Law, we are each committing to do our best. So the first policeman of a Scout or Scouter is the person themself. That is an obligation freely and voluntarily undertaken. There can be some real disagreements about what this means. There can be some extreme disagreements where one person's sincere and honest interpretation disagrees with or is even inimical to another person's interpretation of the Oath and Law. In most cases, I would hope that talking with a person about the Oath and Law obligations would be sufficient to resolve the problem. However, I have watched enough "We're going to play paintball whether the Guide to Safe Scouting says we can or not." to know that can be wishful thinking. In those cases, the person noting the problem has to decide if the matter is sufficiently severe to justify some escalation. Then talking with some more senior person in Scouting and/or with a knowledgeable pro is wise. There can be some real benefit in dealing with a pro. They are paid to do this and they are most often not local people. Next week, next year and 10 years from now, I will still be dealing with the same people in my local area. The pro likely will not. They can say the unpleasant things that need to be said as part of their job knowing that they will be moving on. But there is no one answer. Having been a Commissioner at many levels including Council Commissioner, I disagree that being the "bad guy" or "Scouting cop" is a Commissioner function although it can be the Commissioner who does this function on occasion. The Commissioner is the friend of the unit. Rather, I have found that it depends on the personalities of the people involved at the time rather than the badges that they have on their sleeve.

Hello ASM59, I really am more comfortable with the dictionary definition of "consensus" than I am with either of the alternatives that you suggest. My contrast with a "consensus" organization would be a "leading" organization if you will. An organization like the NAACP or the Sierra Club or Right to Life which exists to push a sociopolitical agenda and which takes positions which are outside the "average" of the individuals in a community and are attempting to move the "average" values of the community. In contrast, my view of Scouting is that, by and large, its values pretty well represent an average of the individuals in the community. Values like "trustworthy", "loyal", "helpful" and "friendly" are pretty non-controversial. While Scouting may try to move the values of an individual member of the community, it would be trying to move them toward values which, by and large, would be held by most members. I note, for example, that in his recent interviews, Chief Scout Executive Mazzuca stated that, among other things, the BSA's gay policy would be in line with the desires of most parents. I note also that when segregation was common in the US, the BSA was pretty much segregated also. There were some parts of the country in which there were separate white and black councils. The BSA's change in policy pretty much paralleled changes in attitude in the country. So not a vote and not immutable values and policies. But rather policies which pretty reflect the country and the communities which Scouting serves and which change as the country and the communities change.

I've followed this thread and my opinion has swung back and forth. Here's where I am now: 1) The Guide to Safe Scouting requires separate sleeping facilities for persons who are not married. That's pretty clear. 2) Opinions on persons who are engaged/dating sleeping together vary depending upon the particular poster. They range from "big deal" to "BIG DEAL" I would suggest that Scouting is a consensus organization. A Scouting leader, particular a pro or a top volunteer leader, needs to act to maintain credibility. If there is an action they are take or fail to take because a minority of persons would be troubled by it, that's appropriate as a leader in a consensus organization. Even if they themself think that there is nothing wrong in the action, it is probably the action of a wise leader not to ask for unnecessary controversy. Another example, is the use of alcoholic beverages. The Guide to Safe Scouting says: "The Boy Scouts of America prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members." Per these guidelines, it would not be prohibited to consume alcoholic beverages on non-BSA property, at activities not involving youth, while in uniform. However, many leaders believe that there is a prohibition on drinking while in uniform or that there should be. I would argue that a wise pro or top district/council leader honors this feeling and refrains. Why ask for trouble and controversy unnecessarily? In the case of the DE mentioned, I have a little more sympathy. We're not talking about refraining from sex while camping for an evening or holding off on the booze for a single dinner. We're talking about the entire summer. But even so, there is the matter of the example and the prohibition Failure to respect such significant but minority opinions likely fall under either "I don't know", "I don't care" or "I'm making a statement." If the former, some knowledge and training is in order but that seems not to be the case here. If "I don't care", then some training in sensitivities of the group is in order. Ultimately, if a person doesn't care about the sensitivities of a group, they will fail as a leader. If "I'm making a statement", then the person needs to weigh whether the statement is worth the risk and potential penalty plus whether anyone else cares about the statement. The final possibility is "I'm an adult and it's none of your business." This is a variant of "I'm making a statement." In some organizations, that statement will be well received and welcome. My experience is that it doesn't play well in Scouting. Each person needs to make their own decisions in terms of where they draw their personal line and the extend to which they want to confirm their personal actions to the desires and believes of persons different from them. Personally, I will certainly try to be sensitive to the wishes of a group which would represent 10% or more of the participants in a particular activity. I will honor the wishes of a single other person if it is not too much of an imposition on me.

Not sure, but I believe that this information is now on the form for 2 reasons: 1) To give the Eagle Board some idea of the time that the Scout has spent on the project 2) To enable the BSA to add up all the numbers and put in the annual report and elsewhere "Last year, Eagle Scouts spent a total of XXXXXX hours doing their Eagle projects." For both of these purposes, it would seem to the advantage of the Eagle Scout and the BSA for the number to be as large as is accurate and possible. So I would say include everything that is reasonably included as part of the project. Research time, fund raising time, consultation with others time. I would even include time working on another project which the Scout decides not to do. I would be prepared to defend the number particularly if it looks goofy large, which in some cases I suspect it may well be. Total time spent on the Eagle project all factors considered can be a very big number. If necessary or appropriate, consult with your District Advancement Chairman particularly if one or more members of the Advancement Committee or Board of Review can be a pain in the tail. But no one beyond that level will ever criticize the number. Rather, I suspect they would like it to be as large as possible.

I give new Eagle Scouts a $25 gift certificate to kiva.org www.kiva.org Kiva is an organization which makes microeconomic loans to small entrepreneurs in 3rd world countries. The Scout goes on the web site and selects the precise person that he would like to help. When enough people combine their money to add up to the amount that the entrepreneur has requested (typically $500-$1000), the person gets their loan. Repayment rates are extremely high >99% and the money comes back to the lender. The Scout can loan the money then to another entrepreneur or take it out through PayPal. I have one sum with Kiva which has been loaned and paid off 3 times and is working on its 4th time. I have started giving similar gifts for graduations, etc. also. It strikes me as a wonderful way to introduce Scouts to capitalism and business, make them award of the 3rd world and enable them to make a difference themselves.

Just to add to the information, there is nothing saying that the Eagle Scout Scoutmaster conference has to be after all other requirements are completed nor even that the Scout has to "pass" the conference, just take part in one. Whatever order the Scout wishes including doing them in parallel.

According to the Guide to Safe Scouting: "Male and female leaders must have separate sleeping facilities. Married couples may share the same quarters if appropriate facilities are available." If you really want to pursue the matter, you can go to your Scout Executive (top guy) and ask for a clarification on this matter. If the SE asks what you mean, you can give the example of this DE and say that you want to be sure that you understand for your own campouts. If one really wanted to be a hairsplitter about the G2SS, one could say that it says that the leaders must HAVE separate sleeping facilities, not that they must USE them. However, I believe what is intended is quite clear. Did any of the Cub Scouts notice or care? Is this a fight worth fighting? That may be a different question.

Many, many years ago (1973 to be exact) I was directing a Wood Badge course in Southern California. The camp had an old flag and asked if we would like to retire it as part of a closing ceremony. I thought that was a great idea. Note that at the time, I was an Air Force officer on active duty and there were two other Air Force personnel on staff. So we had what I considered a nice dignified retirement ceremony at the closing ceremony. Very touching, I said to myself. "Well done, Neil, you've done it again :)" I went from the ceremony to the showers where, in the dark, a couple of participants were expressing extreme anger that we had just had a FLAG BURNING at Wood Badge. To which I said to myself. "Neil, you've done it again." Things were different then.

"Testing is only one method to see if a learner has learned. Application of what was taught is another method. " True. Which is why the term "evaluation" from the previous generation of instruction was probably more appropriate than testing. But regardless of what it is called or how effected, the idea is that the instructor verifies in some way that the learner has acquired the knowledge and (presumably) can put it to appropriate use.

" Last spring, we went to a boy scout recruitment night with our Webelos. The boys were totally 'wowed' by the 2 troops that had flashy power point presentations, and completely ignored the closer, friendlier troops with people we know in them." At the risk of posting this in about every other post that I make: "If a fisherman bait his hook with the kind of food that he likes, he will not catch many, certainly not the shy, game kind of fish. He therefore baits his hook with the kind of food that the fish like." BP gcan, you made an extremely important discovery. These Cub Scouts and Scouts of ours have grown up and are comfortable with XBOX, Wii, Disney, the NBA, MTV, etc. That's the competition, the expectation and their comfort zone. We don't need to go completely over to that dark side and once we get them into the woods, things may be different. But meantime, we have to get them in the first place and that means communicating in terms that interest them and make them comfortable.

" Hold the phone . . . didn't you just say that if the student doesn't learn, it is the teacher's fault? " I didn't read that at all. What I read was that if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught. Not a "fault" situation which implies that there is some kind of blame attached to it. It is, or should be, rather simple. When the teacher has finished the teaching, the learner is given a test of the material. This can be simple or complex, theoretical or practical. To me, the ideal is simple and practical. But the purpose is to verify that the learner has learned the material. If not, then the teacher says "Hmmm. I haven't gotten the material across. Perhaps I need to repeat the instruction. Perhaps I need to do another method of instruction or simplify the material I am presenting. Perhaps I need to verify that this learner cares about learning this material at this time and either do more to build their interest, come back another time or forget about trying to teach this material to this particular learner." In this context, signing of Boy Scout advancement requirements becomes extremely simple. When the instructor verifies that the material has been learned, the requirement is signed. Until then, the requirement is not signed. It is a process with responsibility on both the instructor and the student. Bob White has it exactly right as far as First Class in a year. This is not a burden on the Scout like the 4 minute mile or the 10 second hundred yard dash. Rather, it is a standard for the Troop. If the Troop is sufficiently active, then a Scout will, as part of their normal Troop activities, learn enough skills and carry out enough activities in about a year to become a First Class Scout. The Troop's responsibility also is to watch and track the Scout as he progresses and give him advancement credit for the things that he is doing in the normal course of activities. If that isn't happening, the first place to look is at the Troop program. I would say that part of problem rests with Council and District Advancement committees. Very commonly, the only thing that these Advancement Committees care about is Eagle Scout Boards of Review. Yet isn't their responsibility also ensuring that all rank and other advancement, in both Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting is up to standard. This is and should be a collaborative effort. If the advancement committee concludes that appropriate standards for TF-2nd Cl- 1st Cl are not being met, possibly because of information given by Commissioners, they might work with the Training Committee to train leaders and even Scouts in the material. This might require the participation of the Camping Committee to provide the experts and instructors to do the instruction and might be reinforced by a Camporee or other activity by the Activities Committee to actually put the information into practice. It might involve getting some experts from some of the units to do some of the instruction and demonstrations and to work with Scouts from outside their units My heavens! The several committees of the District plus the Commissioner plus units working together to improve Scouting and build skills at the unit level!! What a concept!!! But no, it's so much simpler and more fun to sit on our duffs and grump about how Scouting is going to the dogs and setting a rigid percentage standard so we can turn kids down for Eagle if they don't participate in 63.814% of unit activities in a particular year. It certainly is the case that there is a weaker level of knowledge about outdoor skills than there used to be. But that doesn't have to be. There are still expert Scouters out there who are happy to share their knowledge. There is instruction at REI, AMC, Sierra Club and other such places. There is prolific skills information on the net. I believe that the first step is for leaders to care and then roll up their sleeves and learn things themselves and then pass on the knowledge.

Great news, gwd. However, I would suggest that you stay in close, friendly touch with the Webelos Den and have your Scouts maybe conduct another activity with them. I suggest that because I would not be surprised if they visit another Troop and like it too. Don't take anything for granted. Keep working on building the relationship.