NeilLup

Our council is considering this but likely only for direct contact leaders phased in over several years. Training records are a major concern of mine. Availability of training is another. Having said that, is any of us really comfortable entrusting their child to a Scout leader who is unwilling/unable to take the time to become trained to do their job in Scouting. There are, after all, at least 3 ways to be certified as trained: 1) Group training 2) Personal coaching 3) Self study (including on-line) If someone is an experienced leader doing the job, they can be certified as trained based on self-study. The idea is not to fill training courses; it is to ensure that each Scout has a leader who knows what they are doing. BTW, DPWatson, I just checked the Baltimore Area Council web page. It refers only to mandatory training of DIRECT CONTACT leaders and that phased in over a 3 year period.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

Having worked with more DEs in over 50 years of Scouting than I can count, I respectfully suggest that, in a case like this, it is the job of the District Executive to: 1) Listen to the parents 2) Make a reasonable decision on who should be involved (himself/herself, some volunteer(s) or some combination) 3) Help get those people involved and help come to a good conclusion If the unit goes defunct, it will be the responsibility of the District Executive to explain why and to come up with another unit to replace it. The District Executive would then like to dropkick the individual who said/decided that it was a matter strictly for volunteers and the DE should not be informed and involved. This is not saying that the DE will be the one actually doing the work. That is yet to be determined. The DE is trained and paid to address situations like this. It is one of their highest priority items. Get them involved right away.

Hello Ev, I suspect that I didn't make my point clearly enough. The Scout shouldn't have to do those things. Nor, in my opinion and according to the BSA advancement guidelines, should he be required to show blue cards for every advancement. So here is the scenario. The Scout is preparing for his Eagle application and Board of Review. He is told that he must have the blue cards for all of his merit badges. He doesn't have all of them. I make the presumption that the effort has then been made by the Scout and/or by the unit to reason with the Council Advancement Committee and that effort has been unsuccessful. It then should, in my opinion, be the Scout's choice if he wants to: 1) appeal to National to force a Board of Review or 2) get another copy of the blue cards Not the choice of the unit adults who want a test case. That was all.

I agree, Snoring Bear, but I thought that I had read of somewhat of a more pugnacious approach suggested.

"I think we can all agree this Council Advancement Committee has set up a lose-lose situation. I'm just glad I'm not in this Council. " Hear hear! And I'm particularly glad that I don't have a son who is a Scout there. However, I suspect that every council has some policy or area like this. It's just that in this council, the area is advancement which is an area that allows National appeals.

Hello John and Ev, In your appeal, appeal, appeal scenarios, is there one factor you may not have reported. It's a Scout's Eagle, not yours. If some Scout has the blue cards, he presents them, no problem. If he doesn't, then he has the decision about which is to his greater advantage, getting them replaced or appealing. If, for example, he is thinking of Eagle palms, I believe that the time waiting out the appeal would detract from his eligibility time for palms. I would believe that replacing the cards would be, in most cases, the far simpler and faster alternative. Plus there is the factor that a being a whistleblower is rarely a career plus. If one is a whistleblower, one may win one's case or one may lose but, by and large, one's career as it has been is over. So for us adults sitting here, we may want to make the fight. But how is it to the advantage of the indivdual Scout whom you would make the test case?

"That was you. Maybe your parents were enablers like so many post 1960s parents. "Don't worry, we'll get a new one." If it means something to the kid and his parents haven't stressed that nothing is important enough to worry about, he'll hang onto them. " With respect, I believe this is uncalled for in this case. I would respectfully suggest that the Scout is totally within his rights thinking that: 1) He has the merit badge card given to him by the Board of Review or 2) He has the merit badge itself or 3) The information is in the Troop records or 4) The information has been transmitted to the local council that his holding the merit badge is well proven and he has no reason to be expected to keep the blue card unless by someone who is a) a packrat or b) anal I have received professional counseling on how to be neater and to declutter my life. I am a packrat. Discarding these blue cards years after the merit badge is awarded when I have another card documenting the earning of the award is exactly the type of thing I would be counseled to do. The alternative is to hang onto everything that might ever needed. That is precisely the kind of thing that I have been directed not to do. As another example, when I was in the Air Force (1969-1973) our colonel directed us to discard anything that we did not reasonably expect to use in six months. He said that, if needed, we could recover it. The term enabler is a real hot button for me. I resent it deeply, particularly in a case like this.

A couple of thoughts: 1) Twocubdad - You're right. Suggesting bringing a Scouting memento is a great idea for a BOR discussion item. However, REQUIRING it, particularly before scheduling a BOR is something else entirely. 2) As has been written many times. I would suggest that an essential principle is "no surprises." If the Scout was told, at the time that he got his first blue card, "be sure to keep this as you will be required to have every blue card at the time you go for Eagle Scout", then that is one thing. If it is something that is sprung on the Scout as he is getting ready for Eagle, that is something else entirely. That would only reward either the Scout from the big active Troop who has lots of Eagles and knows the ropes, or else the Scout who is and/or whose parents are anal about record keeping. Having, lo those many, many years ago, been the first Eagle Scout from my Troop and being a person whose office looks like a tornado hit a Staples, I would have been in deep trouble. The Eagle Board I had was tough, thorough and long. It was not anal. I'm now working without proof, but I suspect that the type of outdoorsy, camping Scout that we rapsodize about as what we want for an Eagle Scout is probably not the guy who is going to have all of his blue cards neatly filed and crossindexed by date, name of counselor, etc. What kind of behavior are we really trying to encourage and reward?

Actually, Kahuna, I believe that technically, Eagle Scout awards are made by the National Court of Honor. It is a formality but I believe that is how it is done. Also, I believe that the Distinguished Service Awards (Silver Beaver, Antelope, Buffalo) are made by the National Court of Honor. Again, it is a formality for all but the Buffalo as when a person is recommended by the local council or by the region, the award is made. A friend of mine was, for a couple of years, chairman of the National Court of Honor. They did actually meet to consider and select nominations for the Silver Buffalo and, I believe, for those extremely small number of Honor Medals, Heroism Awards and Medals of Merit for which there was some question. But you are quite correct that that group does not physically present every Eagle Scout award. So it is just a nice touch to call it a "National Court of Honor."

One practical reason I can see for the BOR to have blue cards is to learn which counselor approved which merit badges. If, for example, Mom and Dad approved 18 of his 21 merit badges, it might be a topic of discussion. Having said that, REQUIRING the blue cards is, as others have said, adding to the requirements. I do believe that the Scout is required to document that he has earned the merit badges. This was presumably done at the time the advancement report was originally submitted to the council. If the Troop uses them, the Scout should have cards for the merit badges. Not the blue cards, but the cards one buys in the Scout shop. The records should also be in the council advancement records. I also agree that if the Scout has reasonable proof of his merit badges and is denied a Board of Review, an appeal would be upheld.

To answer the original question, my understanding is that a Scout who turns 18 during the year remains a Scout until the Troop reregisters. He is no longer permitted to advance but does remain a member. (As noted often, advancement is one of the 8 methods, not the be all and end all of Scouting.) At age 18, he is permitted but not required to register as an asst. Scoutmaster. Upon reregistration, he either must be registered as an adult or his registration dropped. If he is mentally challenged, he can remain a Scout and advance as long as his mental age is under 18. Please don't ask me what the sleeping arrangements need to be for a person over age 18 who is still registered as a Scout. I can speculate but it would indeed be only speculation. With the consent of the local council, if there is no Venturing Crew available, he could, I imagine, register as a Lone Venturer and still be active with the Troop after age 18.

"I do think that if a family has an Eagle Court of Honor in its home and elects to serve adult beverages, I am not sure how to stop them. Troop adults can leave, but to tell someone that in their own home they are enjoined from serving alcohol due to BSA policy is not an argument I want to make" The methods are exceedingly simple but potentially very painful: 1) The Troop has a policy -- no Eagle Courts of Honor in parent's homes or 2) The Troop has a clear understanding with the parents that the ECOH is a Scouting function. The guidelines of the Guide to Safe Scouting will be followed. If they are not, the Troop adults will not attend, their children will not attend and the Eagle medal, presentation kit, etc. will not be made available. 3) If the Troop has this understanding and the parents violate it, all the Troop adults leave. The Scoutmaster calls together the PLC on the spot and asks the the SPL to ask the PLs to gather their patrol members together and meet outside the front door of the house. The Scouts are told "We are exceedingly sorry, but alcohol started to be served and that is not permitted at a Scouting function. We now need to make arrangements for you to get home. If your parents are here, we will get them and if they are comfortable, you can return inside. We Troop adults will not." Will this create a "nuclear holocaust" in the Troop? Probably. It is a real test of "A Scout is brave." But I'm quite willing to bet that it would only happen once. To argue that an Eagle Court of Honor is not a Scouting function is pettifoggery of the highest order. It would be like arguing that the presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor is not a military function. If the parents would want to hold a separate reception, in a separate place, with the plan to serve alcohol clearly stated in advance, that might be another matter. In that case, families can decide whether to attend or not.

Hello Your Honor, That's my point about being allowed to twist in the wind. The council could have said "This was an after day camp activity held for the benefit of the Boy Scouts of America, an educational institution. Participating were an employee and a number of adult volunteers. Two youth were present and care was taken to ensure that they did not consume any alcoholic beverage. No Scout uniforms were worn." This would, of course, have required the council to stand up to these two mothers and support their DE. Do I misunderstand how the law is interpreted?

I missed this earlier, but here would be my suggestion. I understand that it has gone now to the boy's father and may be too late but here goes. Once upon a time, I was general manager of a small division of a very large company. There was a story that one of the other general managers had become extremely angry with a supplier and had written an absolutely flaming letter to the supplier. The president of that supplier had simply written to the president of our very large fortune 500 company enclosing the letter and said "Apparently someone has gotten ahold of your stationery and is sending out letters like this using the name of your general manager. You may want to find out how that stationery went missing." I would do the same thing here. I would call in the Scout and tell him that someone had gotten ahold of his Eagle project material and had sent it in including some threats. Then say that it's a good thing that it made it only to you because if it had gone to the police, whoever sent it could have gotten him in very serious trouble. I did some really dumb things when I was younger which today would likely have, as a minimum, gotten me on some very serious meds. We were allowed to do things like that and fail and learn. The fact that our nation is so concerned with terrorism now doesn't make teen agers any more mature. We are, in my opinion, in Scouting to teach, not to punish.

Hello Your Honor, I think that I know the answer to this question but didn't this activity fall under the "benefit or other auspices of an ....educational institution" provision. Or was the DE allowed to twist in the wind?

"Unfortunately, when you agreed to move the troop ECOH to their home, you lost control. The parents are within their rights to tell you to "get bent" if you try to enforce BSA rules in their home. " With respect, Scoutldr, I strongly disagree with this. Let's say that the parents of a Scout agree to let the Troop camp on their private property on which their house is located. The parents choose to dispense with some of the rules G2SS on their private property. Say, for example, they are perfectly comfortable with adults tenting with youth, showering with youth, etc. In this case, I do not believe that the Scouting unit has lost control. The unit simply must say "I am sorry, but the rules of the Guide to Safe Scouting must be followed. You can be MORE strict if you wish and we will honor that, but we must follow those rules as a minimum. If that is not acceptable, we must decline your very kind invitation." Same thing in this case. The problem in this case is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodios -- who will watch the guardians?" The people that are supposedly ensuring that the rules are followed are the ones holding the party. However, as I read the original post, there was concern that this MIGHT happen based upon what normally was done in their social circle, not that it would or that it was planned. Possibly, a clarification to the parents of the clearcut rules in the Guide to Safe Scouting would be sufficient to ensure that there will be no problem.

From the Guide to Safe Scouting: "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" It would seem to be very simple. If it is an Eagle Court of Honor and youth are involved, it would fall under this provision of the Guide to Safe Scouting. And it would be hair splitting of the first order to say something like "Well the Eagle Court of Honor with the youth is in the living room and the youth aren't allowed into the den where the booze is flowing freely." However, I am extremely sympathetic to the problem of the SM trying to be the guardian of morals if that runs counter to what the CC and other MCs want to do. That's asking the SM to do something that's not the SM's job and risks only hurting the SM's credibility. I would consider expressing it as a concern in an e-mail to all committee members publicly saying something like "I just became aware of this provision of the Guide to Safe Scouting. I wonder if we are violating this seriously with the plans for the Eagle Court of Honor? Couldn't we just do without alcohol this one time?" Having said that, while many people choose not to drink alcohol in uniform, there is, I believe no such restriction if youth are not present. Some people believe that alcohol is morally inappropriate or sinful, but many (probably most) do not.

Let's see: Patrol Leader Training 1958 SPL Training 1960 Scoutmaster Basic 1969 Cub Leader Training 1975 Explorer Training 1995 Wood Badge 1970

At the risk of taking a very positive thread and turning it a bit negative, there is an element of goofiness which can come with dating Venturers. Venturers date each other quite commonly. The rub comes that "adults" are not allowed to date "youth." And "adults" are defined as 21 or over -- even one day over -- while "youth" are under 21, even one day under. There was a story I heard that several years ago that the National Venturing President (male) was dating the National Venturing Secretary (female.) He was 20 and she was 19. Everybody thought it was cute. Then (shudder) he turned 21 and was now (gasp) an "adult." Due to the exceedingly high profile they had as National Venturing officers, the only acceptable alternatives were: a) stop dating or b) one or both of them resign from the National Venturing cabinet and from all Venturing They chose option b) and she resigned from all Venturing. On a much more positive note, Brad Haddock, the National OA Chairman, met his wife-to-be when both were being awarded the National Youth in America awards at the National meeting back in the mid '70s.

" Sorry Neil -- I don't think panicking a Scout for the fun-of-it does a thing to advance character, citizenship or fitness." That's why they make vanilla and chocolate. I wouldn't do it with a Scout who is nervous or marginal. But for a guy who comes in loaded for bear and arrogant as the day is long -- it can sometimes be beneficial to teach that old age and treachery can defeat youth and enthusiasm.

" Covenant of the Goddess sponsors the Over the Moon award and Hart and Crescent for Wiccan Youth. It may not be approved by BSA, but there is something out there." In theory these exist. As a practical matter, they may not. WE have a superb Wiccan Scouter in our council and I nominated him for the "Hart and Crescent Distinguished Service Award" offered by the Covenant of the Goddess including paying the cost of the award personally. I first wrote them 18 months ago and then again about 9 months ago. I haven't heard a word. In my second letter, I asked if the award was not granted to let me know but still have heard nothing.

"I do love seeing the look of panic as they think I'm serious. " And THAT, my friend jet, DOES contribute to citizenship, character and fitness.

I'll be interested to see GKlose's definition, but here's my example: Scout comes into Board of Review Is handed a piece of rope Is told "Tie a bowline." Knot is examined by members of the Board of Review Is told "That's wrong. You fail the Board of Review."

Hello Narraticong: "Both are being welcomed back to their Dens for a second year as Den Chief. " Did both of your Den Chiefs qualify for the Den Chief Service Award?

"If it isn't in the Boy Scout HB, then shame on him for expecting the Scout to know something that isn't covered in the manual. " "And thank you, fgoodwin, I wanted to say that too. If it's not in the book, I think it should be barred from formal examinations. Right?" ARGGGGGH!!! The Board of Review is NOT AN EXAMINATION. If it is, there are really serious problems. If there is retesting going on, then there are really, really, really serious problems. And the only reason I can see for being bothered by this question would be if the Board of Review were a retest. If the Scout is doing well on the Board of Review, I have no problem at all with a fun Scouting trivia question like this asked in a friendly way with no particular expectation that the Scout will know the answer. It simply is the case that the Scout cannot be failed or marked down for failing to know the answer and should be told that by the members of the Board. This is part of a fun discussion. A Board of Review should be friendly, kind and fun.