qwazse

UW funds local councils. So, they want to hear from local folks about the organization. It would be gravy if you know someone who benefited from a campership that may have been directly or indirectly funded by UW. But, more likely, they just want to hear how much boys enjoy the program that the council provides. So, they want to hear some of your personal adventures. If you've also known female Venturers, Sea Scouts, and Explorers, and how they are now serving the community you could mention them as well.

.... fond memories traveling poor and ordering horse steaks in .2 Kg slices ... then tenderizing to country fry ... @@CherokeeScouter, pick a best answer so Flagg can justify his indignation.

holely multi-punched Hollerith cards!

Here's the deal, IF HE WANTED ON HIS OWN TO TRY THIS MB, he's ready to give it a go. You were absolutely right not to push on advancements. That's his patrol leader's job. And, it really depends on what the scout is doing. So, if they are going to a waterfront and one member hasn't passed a swim test, then the PL busts hump to line up a swim test so his guy who missed camp can qualify to use a kayak. That has nothing to do with advancement, it has to do with safe swim defense. A tall order for a PL, but one that helps a scout feel taken care of. Now, this is another opportunity for a scout to be part of the group. Lean on that MBC and ask him to allow your son in the class like the GTA says he should. But, more importantly, so this caring adult could help you and his SM make this boy feel like he really is a scout (the concept, not the patch), appealing to the 4th point of the scout law. BTW, you are not the first soldier who I've met who would rather not camp and hike. I've known WW-II vets who when they came home vowed to never spend a night under stars again. (Vertical warfare in the Alps will do that to a fella.) I'll admit that some of those camp outs my first year were really rough. (Dad/brothers never came with me, either.) But, coming back the second year having learned how to enjoy myself -- ultimately sealed the deal. So, pardon me if I read into this, but your son might be just the kind of guy this troop needs ... if they can keep him engaged until he gains his footing.

The trick, here, is to discourage MBC's from discriminating against boys based on age or rank. If a boy decides his trail to Eagle is going to start with earning 100+ MBs -- after which he will attend to the tedium of T2FC, so be it. Work with the boy, and every 10 MBs or so acquired, mention, "Hmmm, wouldn't you like a new oval patch on your left pocket?" I think that's the real issue in @Phrogger's troop. They have an advancement "meat grinder" that works perfectly for 7 of 8 boys. For the 8th kid it's "Sorry, Square, that hole we drilled doesn't have any corners." In my troop, I've seen this happen a few times (one in eight), but I've also seen boys stick up for the out-of-place scout. They wouldn't attend the class until they were sure the odd man out was welcome. That's the problem as troops become boy-led, they pretty directly question your crazy schemes. Edited: I'm changing my advice: Talk to the MBC. Explain to him the situation and ask if he could play this one by the book. If you explain that your boy is losing interest in scouting fast, and you think this time with his fellow scouts might be a game-changer -- even if he comes away with a partial -- might help turn that attitude around.

Agreed. He should work on AoL in his Webelos den. Help get everyone up to speed while he enjoys 6th grade.

Absolutely! We often have our scouts teach aspects of MBs ... even to scouts who aren't working on a MB. This is especially true if the skills being demonstrated have become the scout's hobby. In fact, sometimes by having a scout demonstrate a skill, the other scouts better know exactly what they are supposed to do for their counselor.

Did your son sign up because he thought cooking would be fun? If so, then he shouldn't be discouraged. But if he did it because he thought he should do what everyone else was doing, or because he got it into his head that he was to do required badges before electives, he should be encouraged to pursue his interests. Son #1 signed up for archery his 1st year. Our CC tried to discourage the choice, but I told him I know the drill and partials were not a problem. He had a great time earning it with his PL.

Sounds like they want to showcase how former scouts are "giving back." But ... Touch base with the Scout executive or whoever may have suggested your name, and ask why they thought you would be a suitable person to hear from. That will give you a good idea as to what you should highlight. Then there's the basics. Find out how much time you have. Outline a speech that would use half of that time. Practice in front of a mirror, with a stop-watch. Ask a friend (ideally someone who has been to these banquets) to review your talking points.

Welcome. I like your plan. It is a great thing to go to at least one summer camp having your Eagle patch already earned! Enjoy the forums, we like hearing from scouts about life in general. If your SM isn't already on here, invite him to give a listen.

Thanks. It's always great to hear what makes an impression on our scouts! Regarding winds. My line is usually "Winds under 50? It's a good day!"

I must have missed this. It is, at its core, a matter of not catching the ire of those who take St. Paul at his word when he said "Let the marriage bed be sacred." (There are several other references from more ancient texts as well.) If there's any place where our religious CO's being the majority have left their mark, it is in our YPT. When Mrs. Q joins us, we share a tent. Mainly because she refuses to join me out under the stars!

Was at a council venturing meeting last night, and 2 out of 6 had not got the memo. One still was under the misconception that a plan was necessary for unit accident insurance to work. As one would expect, it seemed that the folks who are managing active units or program were on top of this.

LOL, I'm on soft $, so ... every election cycle and budget crisis... Requirement 5 on the application does not say in bold "only" as in "must only be approved by the project beneficiary". In fact the wording places emphasis on "plan, develop, and give leadership to others". Like I said, it's entirely possible that 10 Life scouts in 100 did not make clear on paper how they fulfilled those parts in bold. It's the BoR's responsibility to find out how the boy did fulfill the requirements. Then it's possible that 1 in 100 did not do the parts in bold in spite of sign-offs. If I hadn't seen this happen myself, I wouldn't believe it. (It was regarding MB sign-offs, and the CC put his foot down not the DAC, but same principle). I'm glad I've only seen it once among scads of Life scouts in the past couple of decades. Our DAC has seen it more than once in more than one way. What would you expect him to do?

Do you realize how patently ridiculous that sounds? "Add so many hoops that Little Johnny need never fear of embarrassment at the EBoR ..." 1. A tremendous percentage of young men do just fine with the requirements as written down in the handbook and a modicum of guidance. Some of them don't communicate what they did very well, so we have to account for that by pleasant conversation at the BoR. 2. Others will, in spite of any and all admonitions, will simply do less than they should, and their leaders will sign off anyway, kicking the can down the road. It might involve a service project, it might involve an MB that falsely signed. Whatever. That can only be handled by a BoR laying out what must be corrected. Discerning between the two is the district volunteer's responsibility. Maybe on some Big Rock Candy Mountain he/she wouldn't have to. But ... It is not the responsibility of every scout who hustles up and navigates Eagle requirements successfully to jump through increasingly laborious paperwork for the sake of those who may choose to ignore the plain language of the requirements in their handbook and on the Eagle application.

I have a vintage pocket door hanger that's been reminding me for 3 months that things don't go as planned. But then, I've only put in maybe 18 hours max of effort ... A few hours every weekend. I guess it boils down to: did the boy go through enough twists and turns to push through a plan? Sometimes that effort doesn't get put down on paper, and that's why we need BORs.

The process is certainly beyond the average teen. But we're not out to award average. Or, are we?

i disagree. I've seen 16 y/o's projects scuttled because of too many discouraging words about their plan. What really ticked me off was the boys who were showing the greatest independence and creativity were the ones getting brow-beat. That just didn't happen when I was a scout. Or maybe it was where I was a scout (more rural than sons' and daughter's district). Half my job as a volunteer is coaching parents to back off. The other half is simply telling boys that whatever project is on their heart, we will stand by them.

Welcome, and thanks for all you do for the kids! One of my aunts is possibly the oldest living Campfire Girl. She was one of my inspirations for promoting our Venturing Crew.

The EBoR is the "check" that you're asking for. There's this ongoing perception that every BoR should be completed the night that it is opened. Therefore, there's this constant build-up of literature and obligation of adults to avoid the positive experience of a BoR declaring that requirements have not been met. You are hopefully going to hold hundreds of boards. If 99% of them approve their candidate, how is that a problem? As a practical matter, our DAC occasionally has the floor at the boy-scout breakout session of round-table and gives us a general run-down of what types of applications have and have not been accepted. Getting the word out that you do reject applications from time to time is the best ounce of prevention that I can think of. The only "structural" thing that I can think of to guarantee a scout an eventually successful BoR, if that's what he really wants, is to remove the age 18 deadline. (Sorry to those of you who are tired of my soap box.) Then reviewers can, without remorse, turn down a 17.9 year old, give him an adult application, and invite him to keep trying as an ASM until he gets it right. There will be no more farming out agency to adults, no more disputed circumstances, no more parents whining about how Little Johnny's career is ruined. If it really matters to him, let him get it done as Big John. I wonder how many thousands of these "rush under the wire" applications would ever even get submitted if nobody felt that deadline approaching.

The only way to know who let whom down is to hear from all parties. Having never had an Eagle coach (and having done very little as a coach for son#2) I have no a priori reason to blame adults.

Speaking up at round table might help. I'm still patting myself on the back for calling out our DE when he told us to file tour permits/plans for meetings at coffee shops (or anywhere away from the CO)! Six years later, and the whole Byzantine process has imploded. You're welcome. This program roll-out is a different animal, however. So, don't count on the pro's to be at liberty to go quietly into the night. But, it would be good to sound off and get the opinion of other scouters in your district.

I think the Congressional Charter also carries a bit of a "what's best for the country" obligation. But, that obligation can be met through a broad array of decisions -- organization and membership being motivation for some of those.

To follow-up on Flagg's interpretation. It sounds like the BoR is set to proceed. So that meant that council did "verify" the paperwork. Still, I think a good DAC would do the boy a service by giving him a "heads up" that there are deficiencies, and he will have to discuss those with the board. The unfortunate thing is this pits the unit against the district. It's one thing if the CC tells the SM that its time to take the BS out of the BS of A. (Happened to one of our Eagle applicants once.) It's a whole other can of worms when the DAC has to call everyone to account.

Not so. Something could be signed falsely. Or the signer may not have understood what was being signed. Or the implications of the signature might not completely fulfill intent of the requirement. Using a less nuanced example, if a PL signs off on compass requirements after his scout completed an compass course at a local club, but the course merely crisscrossed flat open land and did not involve measuring the height of a tree or breadth of a ravine, the board must conclude that the scout is not yet a first class scout. They must suspend the review, put in writing why. and tell the scout what he will have to do (i.e. in this case, measure some objects). In @@dfolson's case the troop's SM should not have signed the application because the bold section of requirement 5 was not done. If not the SM, then the CC. If not the CC, then local council should deny verification. Call the scout and unit leader right away, and explain what's missing. The boy has one week to correct it. There may be more to this than what the boy wrote down. It could be that this beneficiary had a lot of political pressure to cut corners. If that's the case, the boy should make that clear. That would be a productive discussion point in an EBoR, as I'm sure many reviewers have been in the same position in their career. But, to rubber stamp the application and let the kid be blind-sided at the BoR goes directly against the letter and spirit of the GTA. I feel for the kid. This is a nation of deadlines. Which I hate. It leads to these crammed and crimped projects that deny the boy agency. I do think that the recent changes in the process help most boys, in principle, but sometimes we compromise pride to achieve punctuality.