Oak Tree

Yes, I know the official answer, straight from the Eagle Project workbook: "No minimum number of hours is required." At the same time, that workbook does say that the amount of time should be "as much as is necessary for you to demonstrate your leadership of others." The question is, how does your district interpret that? Could you demonstrate your leadership in three hours? ten? five minutes? forty hours? eighty hours? I will say that our district committee appears to use a rough guideline of forty hours (not officially, of course). What's the range of efforts you've seen approved? How short do you think should reasonably be approved? The vagueness of this requirement gives it flexibility, which we need, but it can also be very frustrating to new people to the program who are trying to figure out what the real, hidden requirement is.

"Add value" can mean so many things. I'm ok with that definition in the economic sense - a project does need to benefit some entity, and one way to restate that could be that a project needs to provide something of value to the entity. I don't think the something needs to be physical. The only limitation that appears to be relevant is that it can't be "routine labor". If the youth club normally pays someone once a year to paint the fence, but the Scout wants to do it this year as an Eagle project, that wouldn't count. This sounds far from routine, though. I want to spin off another thread on the debate between twocub and crew21.

I think you've got the right answers to the official policy - the BSA does not state that you need the training. But the SM is within his rights to make sure that the program operates safely, so there is nothing (from the BSA's point of view) wrong with his imposing additional rules. On the other hand, the CC does, more or less, outrank the Scoutmaster on matters of policy. I'm not too worried about whether the leaders are MCs or ASMs who take the Scouts camping. In our unit, as in many others, those roles very much blend together. Even in the Troop Committee Guidebook, it's clear that there isn't always a full distinction. On recruiting - "If there is no ASM handling this, a committee member should." It says that each ASM is "assigned specific program duties" without saying what they are - but it's easy for me to say that the Equipment Coordinator (a committee position) is really a program duty, and a boy-facing role at that ("work with the quartermaster"). The same for advancement, which definitely sounds like part of the program and is certainly boy-facing ("Encourage Scouts to advance", "Work with the troop scribe", "Work with the troop librarian"). It also seems true of the chaplain, the activity coordinator, and the membership coordinator. The only positions that really seem like full "committee" positions are chair, secretary, training coordinator (the adult training part), and treasurer (if you ignore the dues and the work with the troop scribe).

bnelon44, Your position is officially correct. But here's the thing. National did publish the requirements, more or less. And this is where reasonable people have to use their judgement to take perfectly reasonable actions. The badges are for sale on scoutstuff.org! It does not seem reasonable to say that the BSA does not want you to have them. National told the councils, "here's what the requirements are going to be." The councils published those on their web sites. Leaders began plans to offer them. Scouts began working on them. National says, "oh wait, we weren't quite ready, we need to add some merit badge books and some good national publicity," but they don't say that they are about to change the requirements. My judgement tells me not to penalize any Scouts who are working on the requirements as preliminarily published. But then again, I'm more of a use-your-best-judgement kind of guy than a follow-the-rules-to-the-letter type.(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)

Well-written, Lisabob. That's perfect. When I said I didn't know what the text would look like, I was thinking that I didn't really know what was causing the delay, but as you so artfully demonstrate, that is irrelevant for the apology. Here's an article that I just find so on-topic: http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/article.asp?intArticle_id=766 This author describes the requirements for an apology to be effective and discusses how it can improve business operations, interpersonal relationships and employee morale. Here is what I consider the key line for anyone in a position of authority: Apologizing by admitting a mistaketo co-workers, employees, customers, clients, the public at largetends to gain credibility and generate confidence in ones leadership. Acting defensively, on the other hand, undermines it. Those who feel most natural in their position of leadership tend to be comfortable in admitting mistakes. Those who are insecure about their position tend to be more defensive. The article says: To acknowledge a mistake is to assert secure leadership. And yes, Twocubdad, you had me laughing too. If this delay doesn't change any of the preliminary requirements, but just involves the addition of promotional material, that will just be the capper.

A quick google search suggests that not all of the correctional facilities are privately run. However, it's really hard to tell what the chartered organization might actually be in some of these cases. Just because there is a Boy Scout troop in a correctional facility, that doesn't mean that you can assume the government necessarily sponsors the troop. Who knows what the paperwork says? http://www.in.gov/idoc/2431.htm http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/OPS/PRISON/cccf_home_page.shtml http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/beci.htm http://www.corrections.ky.gov/ksr/about/aboutprograms.htm Some of those, in addition to offering Boy Scouts, also offer religious services. Presumably the state isn't providing those. Here's one that directly states "The Camp Summit Juvenile Correction Facility in Michigan City became a chartered member of the Boy Scouts of America last month." But despite the fact that it says they established a "Boy Scout troop", they appear to actually be talking about an Explorer Post. http://www.in.gov/idoc/news/012207BoyScout.pdf Think it's ok for the state to use Scouts as test subjects? http://www.murfreesboropost.com/scouts-pose-as-inmates-to-test-correctional-center-cms-10535

There are a variety of reasons to use a particular set of methods. There may be lots of methods that can get you the results you want, and adding a few troop or pack specific methods can be ok. But, some reasons to stick with the existing methods: 1. So everyone knows what to expect. 2. To make use of the available training materials. 3. BSA has reasonable evidence that the methods work ok. (although some days I wonder) 4. So that your pack is similar to other packs - better for transferees, better sharing, better ability to get ideas from places like, well, this. 5. So parents and Scouts who read in the book about what should be happening don't get bent out of shape. 6. More materials and equipment readily availabe. 7. The methods tend to correlate to the awards - so the Scouts can earn the awards more naturally (although if you did away with method #7 then that wouldn't matter) I'm sure you can come up with more. It seems to me that you're not really talking about the methods. You're talking more about being overly scripted. I don't see "sticking to the script" listed as one of the methods, so I think you are fine.

P P P P P P P P S S S S S P P S S P P S S P P S S P P S S P CM P = parent S = Scout CM = Cubmaster I think that's what infoscouter meant to draw. We do ours in a semi-circle, too, with the Scouts in chairs. We generally have two rows of Scouts, though.

"the end result will be well worth the wait" That seems exceptionally hard to believe. I would have been happy to wait for it from October 1 through December 31. The result may indeed be good, but trying to make the wait sound like it was a good thing, I'm just not buying. I'm not sure what the truthful text here would look like...

Our Scouts will schedule merit badge classes periodically. I have no problem with it. Often they will schedule several different merit badges, so that Scouts have a choice.

I know of a couple troops that are capped. It seems that primarily they do it by restricting the incoming dens - they will only take dens from their feeder pack. In general they do not prevent people from joining at older ages - they still take friends of Scouts, etc. If you do not have a feeder pack, then I think it's less clear how you would decide which Webelos dens you would take. With six Webelos dens coming up, it sounds like there is enough interest for a third troop, for sure.

I think that many of these things are self-perpetuating. If a group is all women, then a man can feel out of place. Likewise, if a group is all male, then a female can feel like she doesn't quite fit in. Our pack started out with a majority of male den leaders, and over time has now reached the point where the den leaders, Cubmasters, and committee members are 100% men. Despite our egalitarian society, men and women continue to have very different interaction styles, and being the odd man out (or odd woman out) can leave you feeling like you're not quite "clicking" with the rest of the group.

The official answer is that the next rank would begin once the school year ends. But packs can use any of a variety of conventions for this. In our district, we have many schools on a year-round schedule and many on a traditional schedule, so the Cubs don't all end at the same time. We hold an end-of-year picnic and move them up to the next rank then. I'd say - just pick a convention for your pack.

We've had the same problem with the joiners. The simplest solution is just to use a pole that doesn't come apart in the middle, if that will work for you.

I'm with rdclements. One of my sons camped a lot as a Webelos. The year before and after him camped very little. His cohort of Boy Scouts is by far the most active of the three groups. Can you burn out? Sure - if you look at it as a burden. If you look at it as a chance to get out and have fun and relax and accomplish a few things, you can have a great time. Between the pack and den camping trips, they probably camped about 16 times in 20 months. It so very, very much depends on the leaders. Scoutfish, do you have another dad or two who are ready to go all-in with you? I'd suggest not planning out the whole thing - just go on a couple of trips and see how it goes.

We usually do it sometime early in their first year of Webelos. And yes, the leaders wear the patch too in our pack.(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)

Our troop has a vast interconnected web of facebook friends. Adults and Scouts alike. You may, for various reasons, want to normally copy an adult on an email, but there is no rule about it. You can talk to a youth on the phone without their parent listening in, too. It's not always easy to copy a parent on every phone call, text, instant message, facebook message, or other electronic communication. We don't always have parents listening in when we talk to a youth in person, either. Exibar - There is no such rule, but NE-IV-88-Beaver has the best advice - ask your CC to show you the policy.

Doc, Ok, I'll take you at your word. The professionals aren't raising money for the bulk of the time. So what are they doing with the bulk of their time? And why would you say that unit contributions are likely not tax deductible? The vast majority of units are owned by non-profits, and donations to them are normally deductible. I think I've only seen one unit in our district that was ever owned by a company. The large majority are owned by churches, and almost all the rest are owned by fraternal organizations.

We definitely do not require that the invitee shows up. I would say it is indeed adding to the requirement to require that. I normally ask the boy whom he invited. Quite honestly, I'm just as happy if the invitees don't show - we seem to be growing plenty fast as it is.

I like the idea of rewarding those who wear the uniform well. I enjoyed the "You might be a member of the Uniform Police if..." thread. But when I hear the term Uniform Police, it really makes me think of people who tell others that their uniform is wrong. Just as the real police will approach someone who is committing a crime, the Uniform Police will approach someone who is committing a uniform midemeanor.

Yeah, artjrk, that does not sound like a good situation. That's never come up in our pack, but it's good to have a feeling for the people you're going camping with to know how you're going to have to spell out the rules. Most of our pack's camping is at state parks where drinking is prohibited anyway. When we say "go have some family time", we don't mean "stay in camp and break all the Scouting rules you want to." We really mean, "go do some fun activities as a family - whatever you might normally do." People have gone canoeing, but the pack didn't provide the canoes. As Stosh points out, it can be an incredibly safe activity. Even if we were at someplace where drinking was legal, I'd object to parents drinking in camp during family time. I'd probably schedule it like this: "1:00-4:00pm, down time. You can stay in camp and hang out. Parents, if you want, you can take your kids out of our campsite and have some family time." It really helps out if your adults are generally on the same page for their vision of the camping trip. If some are trying to use it as a way to sneak some beer, while others want to focus on outdoor activities, things probably won't go well. On the other hand, if all the dads in a den want to take their kids canoeing during some family time, things will be fine.

jhankins, this is the first time I've heard of claims actually being denied for tour permit issues. That would be great data to have. Do you have more details? What were the claims, and what were the tour permit issues?

All Council camps that allow Cub camping must have showers somewhere on the grounds or their camp will not be certified for Cub camping. Our council has knowingly let our pack camp on council property that did not have showers.

Why not have new Insurance Companies provide what people want? Primarily because what people want is to pay a low fixed cost even if they are likely to experience much higher expenses. There aren't a lot of entrepreneurs looking to get into the business of selling really expensive things at a low price. Is government intrusion the best way to handle this? How else would you propose that people spread the expenses and risk? If you have a known condition, why would any company choose to take you on? The free market could deal with this in a variety of ways - with the current way being that large employers can spread the expenses across all of their employees and this works reasonably well for them. It does not work well for small companies, self-employed, unemployed, or retired people. So long as healthy people can opt out (and they do opt out, even if they don't really want to), you end up in a spiral. I think it is reasonable to require everyone to have some form of health insurance. The government already forces me to buy all kinds of things I may not want to buy - they take my money and give me police protection, free access to state parks, access to health clinics, some marvelous government web sites, free art museums, etc. I actually think that private enterprise could do better than the government at providing a lot of these things. How is requiring me to buy a product any (ethically) different than taking my tax money and giving me access to a similar product?

Here's a quote to support you, Twocubdad:Every process is perfectly designed to get the results it is currently producing.http://i4process.com/publications/rapid_results.html