NeilLup

With respect, how in the world did he make it to a Board of Review? Why was he not stopped at the Scoutmaster's Conference. If the SM believes that this young man does not meet the requirements for Scout Spirit, the SM can, at the SM Conference, so inform the Scout and lay out a course of action which the Scout would need to take to meet the standards for Scout Spirit. If the boy desires, he can then insist upon a Board of Review, but his chances would not be good. A major principle in advancement is "no surprises." Was this Scout counselled many times that his behavior and performance were unacceptable? Was he told that he did not meet the standards for Scout Spirit. If the first time that he hears this is when he is preparing for the Eagle Board of Review, then he might well pass or might well appeal and have the appeal succeed. Was he counselled about this problem in earlier advancement or did this all arise after he made Life Scout? Just because he did not show up after 9/05 is not automatic grounds for non-approval. If he met the active membership requirement and the leadership requirement as a Life Scout, there is no requirement that the active membership and leadership be immediately before the BOR. Your best approach is to have the Scout acknowledge that his performance has not met standard and agree to a program of improvement. Counting on the Board of Review to do the "dirty work" for the Troop, the SM and the Troop Committee can be rather inappropriate.

I had the privilege of being with Catherine Pressler this past week at Philmont Training Center. She is truly a great Scout/Venturing Leader, a great lady and a great trainer. Many of her Venturers also earned Quest and Trust awards. Don't pick at the words "Highest Awards." I have heard Eagle Scout, Silver Beaver, Silver Buffalo and Heroism Award also called the "highest award" from the BSA. Rather, rejoice and celebrate the wonderful accomplishments of these Venturers and their leaders.

If one goes to Google and looks up "Eagle Scout" and "executed" one gets hits for Leslie Lee Gosch and Arthur Gary Bishop both of whom were Eagle Scouts executed by lethal injection. There is no indication that the Eagle Scout award was "revoked" for these criminals. They met the requirements as boys and their later actions do not change that. There may be other Eagle Scouts who are in this sad situation. I am not an attorney but do work in the area of intellectual property. Normally, patent rights and trademark rights are discharged by a sale. In other words, absent a specific agreement to the contrary, one has certain rights granted by a trademark or patent and those rights normally enable one to obtain more money for the sale of a good or service than would otherwise be the case. Having gotten that additional money once, the manufacturer has no further rights to that specific item. However, the purchaser is not entitled to make additional copies of the item or service. So one would, I believe, be in strong position saying that they have rights to retain their BSA insignia, give it to someone else, sell it, bequeath it, etc. One would not have the right to make identical copies of it. Whether one could, for example, make and sell Xerox copies of an Eagle badge, I am less certain. The same thing is true for copyrights. Having once sold the item, the author's rights are discharged to that specific item. But the purchaser is not authorized to make additional copies.

Hello Vicki, I'm sorry if I came across as "high and mighty"; I will tend to do that on occasion. I am not a member of the Wood Badge Task Force but I do know that group and believe that I understand how they wish to proceed. There had been a lot of local variation that had crept up in Wood Badge since the previous course (LD Wood Badge) had been created. In many cases, it was things being added locally and in many of those cases, it changed the tenor and intent of the course. So when 21st Century Wood Badge came out, a number of things were intentionally taken out to make sure that the problems of local variations and changes in course tenor, intent and focus did not happen. Also, the Task Force was put under extremely strict guidelines about how much time preparation for the course and conducting the course could take. The idea was to limit the time requirements for staff and for participants. One thing that was removed, for example, was the Gilwell pennants. There used to be a daily inspection and a pennant awarded to each patrol who met a daily standard. Under the 21CWB, it was the plan that evaluation should be self-evaluation, so an evaluation by the staff was out of place. But the result was that the Gilwell pennants were dropped. Another example is the 30 day precourse meeting. That used to happen and be very useful for preparing the participants. However, that is one of the items dropped because of the extremely strict time limits. In many cases on some of these items, local Course Directors would say "We like what we were doing before and we will keep doing it." That would eliminate some of the benefits of the new changes and reinstitute some of the local variations. So now, new Course Directors are required to pledge that they will follow the guidelines as outlined in the course guide and admin guide. I know for a fact that permanent patrol leaders are a part of the older course which are removed from 21st Century WB. Is this "high and mighty?" Difficult for me to judge, so I'll have to leave that up to you. I hope not. Is it a degree of standardization and regimentation very different from almost everything else in Scouting? Yes it is. Is that appropriate? Again, each of us probably has their own opinion. I do hope that all of us are here for the youth and the fun. Best wishes,

Hello Vicki, I am pretty confident that if your council asked for permission for deviations like a permanent patrol leader, it would be denied. Yours is far from the only council that believes that they don't need to follow the WB course guide.

As WB coordinator for my council and as a former WB Course Director, I am involved in staff selection for my council. Here are some of my observations: 1) Staffing a course requires about 20 staff members including cooking crew (which are not considered full staff members). To get those, we normally need to start with a list of about 50 names or more. The local council Scout Executive and the region must approve every staff member. Sometimes, that does not happen. Then, for various reasons, people can't serve. Also, I tell Course Directors that they must figure that 15-20% of the staff will drop out in the last couple of months and at least one person in the last couple of weeks. I have yet to be wrong on this. 2) Diversity is a factor. Like it or not, people who are not middle class, middle aged white male Boy Scout leader probably have a better chance to be selected on a percentage basis. 3) Geographical diversity is a factor too. If your council has 5 districts, there should probably be a couple of staff members from each district. 4) Recruiting capability is a factor too. While it is important that many staff members be good trainers, that isn't essential for everybody. But a key job of every staff member is recruiting. A person who can bring 4 or 5 people to the course is especially welcome on staff. 5) There are opportunities to help Wood Badge that aren't necessarily "staff." There is the cooking crew. There can be instructors for skills. 6) There is a requirement for new staff members (and, frankly, there has been for as long as I have been doing Wood Badge). There are supposed to be 33% first time staff members if my memory is correct. 7) I believe that as of 2007, new staff members must have attended 21st Century Wood Badge. If you did not, you can improve your chances by going again as a participant. (I believe that, for good reason, exceptions can be made, but these are on a onesy, twosy basis.) emb021, I'm not sure when you were on staff, but what you have described is the staff development time requirement for the previous course. Currently, the course director is FORBIDDEN from starting staff development prior to 90 days before the course and is FORBIDDEN from having more than 3 staff development meetings. Some course directors will have another orientation meeting early to start organization and recruiting, but that is pretty much it. I'm not saying that some course directors don't still follow the old way but if they do, they are specifically ignoring what they pledged to do when they took the Course Director's pledge. This is precisely because some people were being denied staff service opportunity because staff development took so much time. This is part of the reason that there are CDs with much of the course material preprepared. It reduces the necessary staff development time. I hope you get the opportunity to be on staff. It is a great experience.

There are two new units of supplemental training on the BSA National Web Site. 1) Orientation of New Parents 2) Scouting for youth with ADD/ADHD (this is a Power Point presentation). These are for the Boy Scout program. Go to www.scouting.org, then Boy Scout Adult Leaders, then Training and Support, then Units of Supplemental Training. Best Wishes, Neil Lupton

In my opinion, first time Wood Badge staff service is the finest training experience we have in the BSA. I would most strongly encourage anyone to be on WB staff if they have the opportunity. TDC is listed as a requirement for staff service within the previous 3 years. However, that requirement is often honored in the breach.

I strongly recommend considering Wood Badge out of council, particularly if you have been a leader for a little while in your current council. You get to meet new people, learn new ideas and have a great experience. Because I have trouble keeping a job , I have been able to participate in Wood Badge in 3 different regions and in 9 councils. The course is great everywhere, but the little differences make for a wonderful experience. Doing Wood Badge in your home council is great. Doing it out of council is great too.

There is a special course scheduled this summer at Philmont Training Center which should be of real interest to Boy Scout trainers and leaders. This course, "Developing Supplemental Training" is designed for leaders who are involved in writing, developing and/or putting on training programs in their council. It will cover the principles of supplemental training and talk about how such training should be designed and conducted and evaluated for quality and effectiveness Then there will be the opportunity to actually write, put on, and critique units of supplemental training. No promises, but some of the units of supplemental training developed in this course last summer are scheduled to be included in the recommended Boy Scout training of the BSA. The course is early at PTC, June 4-9-2006. Attendance procedure is standard, meaning recommendation from the local council. Please share this with any other leaders whom you think might be interested and benefit. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best wishes, Neil Lupton

Wow Eagle, what a wonderful list. I can tell you that if a Wood Badge participant presented me with a list like that, we'd have a ticket in about 5 minutes. I can also say that if Wood Badge doesn't help you to complete that list, the staff and course are doing a rather poor job. You should budget your time as best you see fit. But The specific purpose of Wood Badge is to help you do the things on that list.

Part of the reason for the privacy/secrecy of WB tickets was caused by some of the excesses of the past. Some councils and even some regions had almost standard tickets. They were handed out and represented a detailed roadmap for the participants. A ticket should result from a personal reflection of what one's Scouting job is, what would represent a good job and what tasks would lead to that good job. It should be the case that if one does one's ticket well, one is doing a good job in Scouting. Conversely, the items that lead to a good job should be the tasks of a ticket. Some places, Wood Badge has become a supersecret organization. That shouldn't be.

As I read this thread, I am tempted to suggest that we look at the forest and not at the individual trees. The forest is, in my opinion, that Scouting exists to improve the citizenship, character and fitness of youth. There are eight methods of Scouting. Advancement is only one of those methods and the Eagle Scout award is only a part of advancement. Yet many of us act as if we exist only to give out, or deny, Eagle Scout awards. To me, the question is what will best contribute to the citizenship, character and fitness of the youth in question and of the Troop. That doesn't call for an easy answer, particularly on message boards like this. It is possible that having the boy not become an Eagle Scout is the best thing, particularly if he decides that he is not worthy. There is no shame in not being an Eagle Scout and it is no life-long blot on one's personal or Scouting career. I know many wonderful men and wonderful Scouters who did not earn the Eagle. I would also comment that if there is some problem with a boy's candidacy, it should be addressed at the Scoutmaster's Conference and not left for the Board of Review. If the SM does not approve the Scout at the SM conference, he can still request a BOR. As far as the rumors about the one Scout, would it be appropriate to ask the Scout "There are rumors in the Troop about this incident. (At that point, show the Scout a copy of the newspaper article.) I am not going to ask you if you were involved or anything about it and I would suggest that you not discuss it. However, do you believe that you have met the Scout Spirit requirement for Eagle Scout or do you believe that it might be appropriate for you to defer consideration of your Eagle Scout award." (If the boy is a couple of days from 18, which of course they always are, then one would word the question slightly different.) Earning the Eagle sets one kind of example. Deciding that one has not earned it and going through life as a Life Scout sets another example, which is not necessarily bad, and gives the boy the rest of his life to address the situation.

Don't forget about the Salesmanship Merit Badge. Every year, when we had our fund raiser, we had Salesmanship as the monthly theme. We did role playing of how to sell, practiced it and had the Scouts pretty excited. The PLC set a reasonable quota for each Scout and those who sold that quota them met all the requirements for the Merit Badge.

Hello Kenk, Thank you so much for the very helpful comments on Aspergers. Math and numbers are part of what I do, so I did want to reflect a bit on your numbers on perfect pitch. I hope this is not picking on your great post. If the prevalence of Aspergers is 1 in 200 and 1 in 20 persons with Aspergers have perfect pitch, that would mean that 1 in 4000 in the general population have perfect pitch just from persons with Aspergers. Yet the number you quote is only 1 in 10,000 in the general population. Does that mean that essentially everybody with perfect pitch has Aspergers or could there be some error in the numbers? Thanks very much.

I've thought about this a bit before responding. I just looked at the Disabilities Awareness merit badge with the idea of suggesting it. Now I don't think that I will. Does your son consider himself disabled? Do you consider him disabled? ADD, Aspergers and other such behavioral disabilities are very tough on all concerned (I don't need to tell you They can be tough for teenage boys who see someone else "getting away" with what they are criticized and punished for. If you can, ask yourself how you would like your son to be treated understanding that, as Scoutldr said, all leaders and Scouts are volunteers and, while promising to follow the Scout Oath and Law, do each have their own problems and worries. You need to talk with the SM about reasonable accomodations. I remember the story of a Troop with one boy with severe ADD. He just couldn't sit still. So he had a signal with the SM and SPL that if it was getting to be too much for him, he would tug on his ear, they would nod and he would get up and walk around the meeting room until he could sit still again. That became the culture in the Troop and nothing was thought about it. But you are right that physical disabilities are relatively easy and satisfying to make accomodations for. Mental disabilities are tougher but there still are many units with Downs syndrome youth where the youth do very well. Emotional disabilities are the toughest of all because those youth can be very prickly and their behavior is inconsistent. In a unit where I was ASM, we had a small boy with a severe emotional disability. He wasn't feeling well one morning, so we left him in camp while the Troop went on a brief hike (I know, I know bad idea.) When we returned, he had cut down a number of trees in this Scout camp. We learned You will need to negotiate the accomodations and keep negotiating. And, as you do, understand that these accomodations may be difficult and unsatisfying for the adult leadership and boy leadership of the unit.

Hello ES316, If you are concerned about whether this potential job jeopardizes your participation in the BSA, there are two levels at which you might have concern. 1) Your unit -- if your unit is Catholic Church sponsored and you have spoken with your priest, then you are probably in good shape. Still, if you wish, you can identify the IH and COR in addition to the CC and SM and mention to each of them that you are considering taking this job. If I were one of those, I would probably say "Why are you telling me" but that's your business. 2) Your local council - If there is a report that someone is an avowed homosexual, then the report goes to the local council Scout Executive and the exec does an investigation and decides what to do. So, if you are really concerned, make an appointment to talk with the Scout Exec (not the District Exec, the top guy only), mention the job opportunity, mention that you are not gay if you choose, talk about the potential financial rewards, and ask the SE if he/she sees any problem with your taking this job. If you do that and there ever a complaint made to the Scout office, then it will go to the Scout Exec. who will say "Yeah, I already know about that." Of course if your SE changes, then you probably want to meet with the new SE. When you say a "gay bar" I presume that they don't have a sign in the window saying "No straights allowed!" It is a public accomodation and any member of the public is welcome. Rather, it is common knowledge that most of the clientele is gay.

I would never want to be too dogmatic, but I believe there is very little chance that this would ever be accepted as an Eagle Scout requirement. Some of the reasons have been stated: 1) Parents would not permit their sons to participate 2) Some Scoutmasters would be uncomfortable 3) Some states might have rules or laws making this difficult 4) The "standard of care" for parenting and child care has become much more strict. Parents seem much less willing to let their sons do things alone or without intense adult supervision and participation. 5) Not every boy is that kind of leader I could modify Voyager's requirements to make them more palatable (for example, making it Troop or Patrol campout), but going the Eagle requirement route could be very difficult. What could be done is make it a voluntary challenge. Establish some local council or supracouncil badge with requirements similar to those listed. When a boy leader meets those requirements, he gets the badge and certificate. If that were done and were successful in several councils, then the justification to National would be a lot more strong.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

I would only add to the great posts so far that parents cannot be assumed to know how things work and, sadly, cannot be assumed to read. They must be trained in how things work. This training can be in a group or can be as individuals. But you need to train them in what you expect and then hold them (and yourself) to it. As far as the woman who said that her husband was supposed to tell you what their son had done, could you have repeated what was needed (training her) and then said something like "I really am sorry, but what I thought your husband said sounded very different from what you are saying now. Could the three of us talk to get things completely straight?"

Maybe I am asleep, but I thought that the age/grade targets were Tiger Cub - 1st Grade, age 6 Wolf - 2nd Grade, age 7 Bear - 3rd Grade, age 8 Webelos I - 4th Grade, age 9 Webelos II - 5th Grade, age 10 Boy Scout - 6th Grade, age 11 Then you need to make some decisions. One option is to have your son participate with the Webelos II den. Another possibility is to have him participate in another Webelos I den with you having some involvement in that den but less than you might like. A third possibility might be for you to have full involvement in the Webelos I den but a reduced involvement with your older son in the Webelos II den. It is admirable that you want to be actively involved with each son, etc. but you do need to keep your business running, sleep occasionally etc. Is it better for your younger son to be involved with the Webelos II den with you there, or to be involved with a den of people more his speed with you there less of the time? Really only you can answer that. But, with the most sincere respect, may I suggest that your primary consideration might be what is best for your son rather than doing what you want which is to be fully involved with each boy.

If you read the entire thread referred to, several responders mentioned favorable experiences with other Boy Scout Troops. To me, this points out the importance of proper selection of leaders and then proper training. A bad leader hurts all of us. I know that Park Rangers I have met in the Grand Canyon have said that their worst experiences are with Boy Scout Troops. The leaders (and boys) don't have camping skills and think the rules don't apply to them. All of us can try to create a favorable image. Those of us involved in leader selection and training can address this kind of thing more directly.

In the previous course (Leadership Development, pre 2001), there was a six month minimum. In the current course (21st Century Wood Badge, 2001 and after) there is no minimum. However, just as with 12 year old Eagle Scouts, there is not a competition to see who can get done first. The goal is a reasonable ticket in the time required to complete that reasonable ticket. The shortest time that I know about is 4 months.

Hello Katydid, I am sorry for the challenges you are going through. A couple of thoughts. 1) Where is your Sponsoring Institution in this? Are they active at all and do they care? You asked the question "Doesn't the Committee have the right to 'fire' the Scoutmaster?" Well, that's an interesting question. The sponsor unquestionably has the right to fire the Scoutmaster (or the Committee Chairman too for that matter.) If the Committee plus the Chartered Organization Representative or the Institution Head of the sponsor believe a change should be made, then it is a done deal. If the Committee says "make a change" and the sponsor says "we like the current guy" then things get a bit tricky. 2) Do you have a Unit Commissioner who works with your unit. A good Commissioner is trained to address situations like this. Very sadly, as a Unit Commissioner, I once had to be the person who, at the request of a Troop Committee and sponsor, actually delivered the bad news to a Scoutmaster. If you don't have a Commissioner, please make sure that your District Commissioner and/or District Executive know about the situation. 3) Does the Committee have the right to get involved in matters like Fairness, Safety, etc.? Absolutely. Has your Committee had training? (Have you? Has the Scoutmaster?) The training for a Troop Committee is an excellent exercise called the "Troop Committee Challenge." This can be put on in one evening for the entire Committee and it helps them learn what their jobs and responsibilities are. Again, your Commissioner can do this, or you can ask a representative of the Training Committee to come and do it. 4) The only way I have ever seen a unit be very strong is either to have a solid partnership between the SM and the Committee, or else for the Scoutmaster to be a one man band and do everything himself and have the Troop be an extremely large part of his or her life. The latter approach can work for awhile but eventually, the SM burns out. The partnership approach is solid, stable and permanent. 5) Is it possible to make a mistake in selecting a Scoutmaster? Absolutely. Should you correct it if possible? Absolutely. The BSA has an excellent brochure on the best procedure for selecting a Scoutmaster. If you didn't use it, I might suggest that you get a copy next time.

Hello ASM7, With respect, it depends on what you think Scouting skills are. Personally, I believe they are a lot more than camping, cooking and hiking, One of the points of the Law is "A Scout is Brave." Here is a chance to demonstrate it. As far as your 15 or 16 year old non First Class Scout, there are incredibly few of those. And the requirement can have been completed at any time while a member, so if he invited someone to join even while not even a Tenderfoot Scout, it would count. As far as how to police, that would only seem to be a problem if the Scout says "Well, I invited XXXXX to come but he didn't want to." Presumably if the invited boy shows up at a Troop meeting or activity, then the boy's patrol leader can sign the requirement just as with any other requirement. And that 15 or 16 year old does not need to invite one of his peers. He could go to a Cub Scout pack and participate in a meeting or two of working with Webelos Scouts and invite one to come to a meeting. It doesn't matter if other people are also inviting the Webelos Scouts. As far as the requirement not being well thought out, each of us is entitled to their opinion. I do know that the requirement went through many drafts to ensure that boys would not be penalized for things that they could not control. For example, the original 1945 requirement mandated that the invited boy join. If he didn't join, then the inviter didn't make First Class rank. Similarly, the requirement, as written, does not even demand that the invited boy go to the meeting. The standard is that the inviter do his best. If he does, then the requirement is met. In terms of policing completing the requirement, if I were a Scoutmaster, the starting place would be "A Scout is Trustworthy." If an otherwise trustworthy Scout would say that he met the requirement and gave me the name of the person invited, place, what the person said, etc., I would probably give the benefit of the doubt. How does one police whether a Scout is doing a good turn daily? Also, the Scout can ask his patrol leader to assist him in the recruiting or whatever. And, as I mentioned, if the invitee shows up for a meeting or campout, then there really isn't a problem. I'm not surprised by the number of objections to this requirement. I see the same type of objections raised to Scout doing active selling as part of fund raising and I wonder if the objections aren't raised by adults who either are uncomfortable with selling or recruiting themselves or else don't believe that boy leadership and boy "ownership" of a Troop should extend to recruiting and sharing the magic of Scouting. Studies suggest that the reasons most boys join Scouting is because some other boy invited them. This requirement is, I believe, just trying to extent that invitation process as much as possible.

1) I believe that until about 1955, there was a requirement for First Class very similar to the current Ordinary Sea Scout requirements. The First Class candidate had to recruit a boy and the boy had to join. I have a handbook for 1945 and that requirement is there. 2) As far as why to make it a requirement a) First Class Scout is supposted to be a fully qualified Scout. It is supposed to have some requirements which are tough and maybe a bit uncomfortable. b) To some extent, this requirement is designed to address the boy who loudly says the Oath and Law at meetings, then takes off his uniform as soon as he gets outside so that none of his friends will know that he is in Scouting. If one is a proud Scout and a proud member of a Troop, then inviting friends should be something that he is proud to do. It may require a bit of embarrassment (You're a Scout???!!!) but this person is going to be a First Class Scout. If he's ashamed to admit that to his friends, then does he have real Scout Spirit? c) As far as making it an advancement requirement, while there are 8 methods, most of us know that for many boys, advancement is right at the top. So if we really believe that sharing Scouting, Scouting spirit, the Oath and the Law as broadly as possible is a good thing, tying it into advancement it a good way to make it happen. Why is demonstrating one's pride in Scouting and one's Scout spirit through inviting a friend such a burden? We read many threads about early Eagles, slowing boys down, etc. Isn't this requirement a contribution to ensuring that boys have an important skill? d) Is this asking a boy to do something that may be uncomfortable and that may be difficult for him? Yup. Is it a valuable skill to recruit and to "ask for the order?" I think so. Will this slow down some boys from making First Class? Possibly but that is something that the Troop can address by training the boys to meet this requirement. e) To summarize, if a boy is too ashamed of being a Scout to ask one friend to come to one Troop meeting or campout, should he be a First Class Scout?