NeilLup

Hello Fishbelly, To respond to your question and, hopefully, add to Scoutldr's excellent answer: How can that boy make Eagle Scout? If he meets the requirements, he becomes an Eagle Scout. To answer the question that you did not ask: What would keep him from making Eagle Scout? If, for some reason, he does not meet the requirements, he would not become an Eagle Scout. But as many, many threads have outlined, if you expect some kind of SWAT team to come down from the National Council at the Eagle Board of Review and deny the boy his Eagle Scout award, I fear you will be very disappointed. If he is going to be deemed not to meet the requirements, he needs to be informed of this sooner rather than later, told why and told what he needs to do in order to meet the requirements. This can be done in the context of a Scoutmaster's Conference or a "non-advancing" Board of Review. If his character is deemed not appropriate to be an Eagle Scout, then that needs to be positioned in terms of the Eagle Scout requirements (likely Scout Spirit) and what he would need to do to demonstrate acceptable Scout Spirit clearly outlined. If the Scout completes all other requirements and so chooses, he can request a Scoutmaster Conference and Board of Review and this request will be granted. The Board will consider all factors including the information provided by the unit on why the Scout did not meet one or more of the requirements. It is at that point that the homework done and substantiation provided by the unit may well make the key difference. The Board of Review will give the benefit of the doubt to the Scout.

Most sincere congratulations OGE. On both counts. However, you really can only receive the Silver Beaver once. But there is no limit to the number of great Scouters you can successfully nominate for the Silver Beaver and other awards. As that number adds up, it's a record you can be really proud of.

I had the privilege of working with Si in the mid 1980s on the National Boy Scout Program Development Committee and at Philmont Training Center. He was a great gentleman and I will miss him.

Hello Jethro and Elfdream, The answer to your question, Jethro, is "yes." Having said that, there is this line I remember from the Merchant of Venice: "The Quality of Mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon place beneath." I know of many, many courses where a participant was not able to make one or more sessions and they were permitted to make up the session with the help of their patrol. It is totally up to the Course Director. If the CD chooses to follow the strict letter of the law, the answer is that missing one session means that the person does not qualify. I do know of a number of people who needed to repeat the practical course because of medical or other problems. We have one person in our course who was able to complete only on his fourth try and then, the second weekend, he was in a wheelchair.

" As I posted leaders with strong imaginations can help bring out the best in the kids we serve. One problem with these Great Camporees is that I wonder how much of the imagination is really coming from the Scouts? While many of the activities help develop leadership skills, what real opportunity is there for true leadership?" This is a really interesting question, Eamonn. I believe that much of the framework for a great Camporee comes from the imagination of the adults. And I have no trouble with that. I'll tell you why. When I first became a Scoutmaster, I read the book on youth leadership and the Patrol Leader's Council. I read that the highlight of the year for the PLC was the annual planning conference. So we scheduled such a conference. I had a flipchart ready to go, a calendar and off we went. I asked the SPL and PLC members "What would you like to do next year?" Silence "It's your Troop, we can consider anything that you want, what might that be?" Silence "Do you want to do some of the same things that we did last year?" "Yeah, that sounds good. Let's do that." It was a very, very unhappy experience. The responsibility and "fault" if you will was mine as SM. Creativity, imagination and initiative cannot occur in a vacuum unless one is a true super genius. One needs to have a background and experience to build on and use as a framework of creativity. An extremely exciting camporee with activities well planned by adults can provide this framework and experience for the Scouts to then build on and use in their home units. If there are some older Scouts who have done camporees in the past and maybe have done Philmont or Jamborees, they can participate in and maybe lead part of the planning and activities. But I fear that if we rely only on the imagination that Scouts can provide for a camporee, those same Scouts will be disappointed. One man's opinion based on some experience.

Welcome. we're delighted to have you here and hope we can help you. If I may, here is the first counsel you will get here. Take basic training now Take basic training now Take basic training now Take basic training now Take basic training now You can start by going to olc.scouting.org

"since boys can't be retested (or so i've read somewhere here)" I'm sorry, BulldogBlitz. That's an understandable reading of what you've read here and elsewhere but it's simply incorrect. You can retest all you wish. It is simply that you cannot deny advancement based on a retest of a requirement which the Scout has already passed. But advancement is only one of the eight methods. Here are some of the things that you can do (not saying they are good ideas, but they would be totally acceptable.) a) You can retest in connection with selection and retention of youth leadership status ( "To be eligible to be a Patrol Leader or Troop Instructor or whatever, you need to demonstrate that you have these basic skills. And you need to demonstrate them, within reason, whenever asked by the SPL or other leaders. If you cannot demonstrate them after a small amount of practice, you must leave your leadership position.) b) You can retest in connection with participation in an outdoor activity. ("To go on this campout, you need to be able to show that you have these skills. If you can't show that, you can't go on the campout.") c) In theory, you could retest in connection with continuing membership. ("Everybody in our Troop must have these skills. If you don't, you can't continue as a member of our Troop.") So it absolutely is possible and permitted to retest.

I concur with Gold Winger. I had been the first Eagle Scout in my Troop lo those many years ago. I had been at college but came back over the summer and completed 3 merit badges so I could get my Silver Palm. (Back then, tenure for each palm was 6 months, so to get your Silver Palm, you had to have gotten your Eagle earlier than 16.5) Why did I do it? Because it was there and I wanted to say that I had. I would also respectfully ask what other recognition is there which routinely is available for a Scout who was close to 18. I was a brotherhood member of the OA, had my religious award and had been on JLT staff. I had applied for camp staff and was not selected. What other recognitions could I have tried for?

Things are more than a little different now, but I was a staff member on a course in which 4 participants were not certified after the practical course including one professional. It was a very messy and unfortunate situation. In the current generation of Wood Badge, it is conceivable but hard to imagine unless a person stopped attending. We did have that happen once. A person went home after the first day, then came back for the second weekend and was expecting to continue.

Just as for the Eagle itself, I believe that if all other requirements are met prior to the 18th birthday, the Board of Review can be held after the 18th birthday. Jet, I fear that your Scout is out of luck. The 3 month tenure requirement needs to be totally completed prior to the 18th birthday.

Hello Nike, As Beavah as said, I've seen a number of units like this over the years and have seen similar situations in training, etc. If you question what they are doing and ask "Oh? Where does it say that in the book? Doesn't it say niether subtract nor add?", their response is "This is how we do it." You can prove who killed Cock Robin all you want and, in my experience, these leaders will not change. So, frankly, it then becomes the question of whether you want to use your valuable resources changing this unit or trying to help other units which don't have any advancement, aren't going camping, etc. Which is going to do more for youth? Plus, this kind of unit commonly has a lot of members, brings a lot of kids to camp, possibly contributes significantly to popcorn and FOS and is doing the kind of things, from a participation and support point of view, that we would like all units to do. So it is not uncommon to decide that discretion is the better part of valor and wait until the leadership changes at which point one can be there to try to pick up the pieces.

Hello Al, At the risk of incurring some extreme flames, do you believe that the citizenship, character and fitness of youth is being improved in this unit? If so, is there not a tremendous temptation to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!" If not, then before doing anything else, I would identify the ways in which I felt that C,C and F were not being improved and try to figure out what to do to address that.

I believe that this policy is exceedingly unwise. However, since adults are only nominated for OA membership and the final election/confirmation occurs by the lodge, if they wish to impose such a requirement at the lodge level, they are probably within their rights to do so. In doing is, as another poster has said, they are truly cutting off their nose to spite their face. But that won't happen until the current adults decide they will leave. Then there won't be anybody to replace them. But that won't be their problem. I would hope that the Supreme Chief of the Fire gets involved and changes things

Congratulations and thank you. You make us Bob Whites proud

Bob was, I believe, also the author of the staff guide for 21st Century Wood Badge, author of the Fieldbook and may have been author of NYLT staff guide. If nothing else, take some books to have autographed

Hello International, I am sorry that your son had an experience that he found frustrating and negative. I am trying for a moment to look at matters from the point of view of the Troop adults. A Scout is a Troop Quartermaster. His job is to take care of Troop equipment and ensure that it is available, ready for use, etc. He attends one campout He does not attend another campout. A third campout is cancelled. You have not said anything about meetings or about what he has done to do his job at meetings or times other than campouts. Has he done anything? What has he done? Having a good excuse for not being at a campout is not doing a job. If the Board of Review would ask "What have you done to do the job of Quartermaster? Let's take a piece of paper and list the pluses and minuses. Did you do a good job?" how would he respond? As far as why the ASM asked for a conference, here I am trying to think like that leader. What would you have them do? The ASM believed that your son potentially met the requirements to go for Star Scout. She invited him to talk. So far, so good. She checked the book for attendance and determined that she thought his service as QM was spotty. She told him that and thought that he should serve longer. Keeping in mind that she is an unpaid volunteer and probably has to deal with a lot of boys and parents, what would you have preferred that she do? Give him a "pass" in spite of thinking that he has done a poor job? Expect him to come to her for the conference? What would you prefer? It strikes me that there are two items here. One is whether your son met the requirement. The other is how he was treated by the ASM. If you have a problem with the latter, I might suggest that you talk with her directly about how to deal with youth. You might say that you aren't talking about whether he met the requirement or not but rather about how her conference struck him. As far as whether he met the requirement, if you have read many of the posts in this forum, and more importantly read the Boy Scout advancement procedures, you will learn that the only requirement for Position of Responsibility is to serve in the office. No attendance requirement or performance requirements are permitted. That isn't saying that units don't impose such requirements; they do. Rather, if a unit does impose such a requirement and refuses to hold an SM conference or Board of Review or fails him at the SM Conference or Board of Review, an appeal to the District or Council advancement committee should result in a reversal of the refusal or failure. If that doesn't produce acceptable results, one can appeal to the National Council. Appeals at the level below Eagle Scout to National are rare but they do happen. But as others have said, if you plan to appeal in this way, it is probably better to go to another unit in connection with the appeal. Scouting is supposed to be a jolly game and fun. Positions of responsibility are supposed to be important learning experiences. With all appropriate respect to you, it is difficult for me to express how much it annoys me when a youth has a position of responsibility, doesn't do it because of "other priorities" and then he and/or his parents think that he still is doing a great job and it's "unfair" to think otherwise. This used to happen to me all the time when I was a SM and it drove me crazy. A Scout would be assigned by the PLC to teach a particular topic at a Troop meeting and accepted that responsibility. When the time came for that topic at the Troop meeting, the Scout would simply not show up. We would muddle through as best we could and I would follow up with his parents and I would be told "He had to do his homework. You don't expect him not to do his homework, do you?" Muttering "A Scout is courteous, A Scout is courteous" under my breath, I tried to keep from screaming "He has known for two weeks that he had this assignment. He knew since school got out at 3PM that he had homework. What were the 20 boys at the meeting supposed to do? What were the 5 adults at the meeting supposed to do?" A position of responsibility is just that, a position of RESPONSIBILITY. It isn't intended to be a pretty badge to wear on the sleeve, a couple of tasks to do when the boy chooses to go to a meeting or a campout and then a trivial stepping stone on the way to advancement. Multi-tasking is a way of life but did your son find someone to cover for him on the campout that he missed? Did he have the equipment all ready to go? Did he take responsibility? Having said that, it seems inappropriate to hold a 12 year old to a standard that a lot of adults don't meet. But it's not a matter of fairness or getting a pass. The question is whether he is learning and displaying responsibility. If his schedule doesn't permit him to do the job of Quartermaster, perhaps some other position of responsibility is available which he can do within his schedule. But the most important questions are whether he is having fun and whether he is learning.

One of the interesting things about the Game of Life is that even if you know exactly what is happening and how it works, the game still happens, other Troop members act as they are going to act and one is not guaranteed to "win." A bit like life.

And that is the problem, highcountry and Gold Winger. There have been many cases over the years where there is a personality conflict between a Scoutmaster and a Scout or between the Scoutmaster's family and the Scout's family or between the Scoutmaster's church and the Scout's church or ..... You get the idea. A Scoutmaster does not have a veto power over a Scout's advancement. The Scoutmaster does have an extremely strong influence over a Scout's advancement. However, to ensure that there is no veto power, the Scout may request a Board of Review even if the Scoutmaster declines to sign for Scoutmaster Conference or for Scout Spirit. The Scoutmaster would then inform the Board of Review of his or her opinion of why s/he believes that the Scout has failed to meet the requirements. The Board of Review considers and makes its decision. I would say that if a Board of Review (which consists of Troop Committee members) passes a Scout in spite of Scoutmaster non-recommendation, then I would imagine it is time for a very serious review of the Scoutmaster's tenure. There would seem to be some very major disagreements between the Committee and the SM. It also can happen that there is a personality conflict between the Scout and/or his family and the Scoutmaster plus the Committee. This is the reason for the appeal process to the local council and to National. I have particularly seen this on a couple of occasions when the Scout is the son of a former Scoutmaster who left under less than great conditions. Needless to say, none of us on this list would every do something like that. It always happens in the other Troop in our town.

Look over my shoulder as I talk with one of the Scouts in my imaginary Troop: Scout: Mr. XXXX, I'm ready to advance. You remember that talk we had 3 months ago. That's my Scoutmaster Conference. I know that the requirements don't say that I need to pass it, just participate in it. So please sign the book and then I'd like to have my Board of Review. Me: Sure YYYY. Happy to. Walk with me for a few minutes. I've been observing you as a Scout. I believe that you need improvement in several areas before you are ready to advance. I'll tell you specifically what they are. (Tells A,B and C.) I would suggest that we work on a plan of action to improve those items before you go before the Board of Review. If you still want a Board of Review now, that is your right. However, I will recommend to the Board that you not be advanced at this time; that I believe that you need improvement in areas A,B and C and that they should not advance you to the next rank until you have improvement in those areas. Can we talk now about the plan of action. (You can stop looking over my shoulder now.) I don't see the problem. If the Scout wants a Board of Review based on an older Scoutmaster Conference, then **I** initiate another conference on the spot and tell the Scout of the problems that I have with his advancing at this time. Of course to do that, I need to know about the Scout and be prepared and ready.

Perhaps you could have the adult leaders of the unit can record a 1-2 message of thanks each telling what his donations have meant to them personally and then maybe some messages from the youth in the same vein. Then give him a CD with each of these messages for him to have, play and replay at his leisure. Alternately, you could have a "this is your life" type presentation for him with people noting the things that he had done throughout his life concluding with thanking him for his contributions to the unit.

Perhaps you could have the adult leaders of the unit can record a 1-2 message of thanks each telling what his donations have meant to them personally and then maybe some messages from the youth in the same vein. Then give him a CD with each of these messages for him to have, play and replay at his leisure. Alternately, you could have a "this is your life" type presentation for him with people noting the things that he had done throughout his life concluding with thanking him for his contributions to the unit.

I have seen several 18 and 19 year old ASMs. Some were successful and some were not. Those that were not seemed to regard their job as being some kind of "super SPL." They wanted to be out in front of the Scouts, lead things, etc. Those that were understood that their job as young ASMs is to mentor younger youth, help them, give them knowledge, etc. Another possible function for the young ASM is to have responsibility for some very specific function. Being responsible for physical equipment -- serving, if you will, as a "super Quartermaster." Or alternately, serving as a "super Instructor" taking responsibility for the physical skills in some key area like cooking or camp preparation and setup. But it is very key that the young ASM needs to know very clearly that they are NOT the SPL, not the PLs, not a member of the PLC and is comfortable with that. It can be a very difficult role for some youth particularly in the Troop where they have been Scouts. It can be easier if he goes to a new unit.

MacScouter, I find your comments extremely interesting. I strongly suggest that you share them with the National Wood Badge Task force particularly if you have other games which could accomplish the objective without the negative risks and consequences. I know that there is far from unanimous opinion on the National Wood Badge task force about the Game of Life. By the way, you have precisely outlined the purpose of the Game of Life and the time when it is conducted as I have heard it described by the Chairman of the National Wood Badge task force and other members of the National Wood Badge Design Team. I know that other posters on this thread have expressed disagreement, but as I understand matters, you are precisely and exactly correct.

Scouting exists for one reason -- to improve the citizenship, character and fitness of youth. Everything that we do is for that purpose. Leaders are selected as leaders only because they can improve the citizenship, character and fitness of youth. When this young man was a Scout, he was on the receiving end of this improvement. So even if he represented a challenge to the Troop, his continued involvement can be significantly justified as improving his citizenship, character and fitness is one of the purposes of Scouting. That changes when he becomes an adult and, perhaps sadly, that change is precipitous on his 18th birthday. At that point, the only reason that he (or anyone else) should be a Scout leader is because they can contribute to the citizenship, character and fitness of the boys in the Troop. If so, and on balance the things that he can contribute outweigh the potential problems that he brings, then it makes sense for him to be an ASM. If not, then he should not be. It can be extremely painful to have to tell the SM that while his son was welcome as a Scout, he is not welcome to be an ASM. The mother suggests that you should "wipe the slate clean." You can't do that and if you do, then you need to wipe clean all the good things that he has done too. In that case, why would he be appointed an ASM. Not also to think like a lawyer, but if some problems did arise, his previous history would come into any lawsuit or other adversarial discussion. Not only would his presence be questioned, but your judgement and the judgement of the COR, etc. in approving him would be questioned also. It borders on a certainty that, at some point, some problems will arise. Do the contributions that this young man can bring outweigh those problems? I am not suggesting that he should not be an ASM. Rather, I would suggest making the classic list on a piece of paper with a line vertically down the center. On the left are his pluses -- the specific tangible demonstrated things that he can bring to the troop which will help improve the citizenship, character and fitness of Troop youth. On the right are his minuses including the potential for problems. You then need to decide if the pluses outweigh the minuses. Sadly, improvement of him probably should not be a consideration now that he is an adult. Most of we Scout leaders enjoy tremendous personal benefit from Scouting. But that's not why we're chartered as leaders.

Thanks for the clarification, Robert and sorry for my misunderstanding.