Beavah

Yah, clemclaw, yeh shouldn't have trouble untying a trucker's hitch, eh? Tie it on bites and the thing comes apart smooth as silk when yeh want it to. So the first loop is a half hitch with a bite (aka slip knot), and the lock-off is also a half hitch on a bite (aka slip knot). Usin' a taut line hitch to tie somethin' to the top of your car scares the daylights out of me. Da vibration is guaranteed to loosen that knot. Wouldn't want to be followin' behind yeh on the freeway! Beavah

Yah, I just don't get da notion that people think older boys won't work with younger fellows. There is a limit, and I agree that the way we've lowered the age for joining Boy Scouting into the 5th grade is a bit too young. But I've never really seen an issue with older fellows and sixth/seventh graders at the end of a first-year program. As long as they're not dealing with crying and homesickness kind of baby-stuff, the older boys are usually just fine with the younger guys. What doesn't seem to work as well is the age-stratified stuff, where the attrition just causes patrols to fall apart/be consolidated at the high school level. Beavah

Don't think you can compare swimming and bike riding to knots. Kids ride bikes and go swimming all the time. There is a good possibility the stuff they do in Scouting is the only time these things are done. Doesn't matter, Ed. Just a question of what it means to be proficient. Kids don't ride bikes all winter around here, eh? They still know how come next year. I haven't tied a bowline in years. Don't use it for anything. But if yeh handed me a rope right now I could tie one. Like I said, we trust kids who have earned BSA Lifeguard to save people's lives 3 years after they get certified. If yeh really sign off on requirements only when kids have truly learned something and are proficient at it, then there will never be an issue of them "forgetting" after a week or a few months. If yeh find that they are "forgetting", then da problem is you subtracted from the requirements and signed off before they had really learned it well. So don't blame the boy if yeh find after a month that he can't perform the skill, and take away his rank patch for not keeping current. And don't excuse it as being "normal". It isn't. Blame yourself for signing off on a skill he didn't really know. Now, the bigger problem is the one GKlose mentions, eh? Some of the T-2-1 requirements are sorta outdated and don't apply in some troops. If yeh don't have tarps or slippery nylon rope, there's no reason to really learn the taut line hitch. If yeh don't do lashing, there's no reason for those knots. So lots of times troops don't really expect kids to be proficient in those things. That's a problem with the requirements not really matchin' the program. It goes both ways, eh? Some troops have other skills that boys need to be proficient in (rigging a bear bag, for instance) that aren't in the requirements. It'd be nice if troops were given some flexibility to choose from a list which T-2-1 requirements really applied to their program. At least for those things like particular knots and such. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da problem with havin' units with different thoughts about advancement is the transfers. The transfers never work. I think yeh need to decide just a few things: 1) Is the core of the problem the parents, or the boy? 2) If the core of the problem is the parents, can yeh set up expectations up front that will keep the parents in check? If yeh do that, will the boy be OK, or will he cop "attitude" as well? If yeh think the problem is the parents and yeh can keep 'em in check, then you might consider the boy's application. Even then, it's goin' to be hard, eh? The boys in your program are going to feel that he "cheated" in order to get Eagle, and aren't goin' to respect him for it. That's goin' to be hard on him, and hard on your program since your boys are going to feel cheated too. He got the prize without doin' all the work they have to do. Can the boy handle that? Can you? So I'd say yeh accept his application only if all those stars align, eh? The problem is the parents, you can keep them in check, the boy will be a good member and you and he and your boys can weather the storm that his advancement creates. Otherwise, just say "No." It's not worth the disruption it will cause your program. We often want to "stretch" for some boys, and that's a good thing, but not when it compromises the program for other boys. Beavah

This has been mistakenly misinterpreted that one can't ask a Scout to tie a knot or demonstrate how to administer first aid at a BOR. That is false. One way to evaluate the quality of the program is to see what the Scouts have learned. If they have not learned anything, that is valuable information about how the SM and SAs are carrying out the program. Yah, acco, I don't think that bold faced bit is really part of a quote from the Scoutmaster's Handbook, is it? I think yeh need to be careful or you might inadvertently mislead somebody. That's your interpretation, not a quote. For that reason I usually think it's better if we just let people read the documents on their own, eh? And then discuss 'em here. That way it doesn't get all confused. But in terms of documents, the SM Handbook 1998 printing you quote from is superseded by the ACP&P 2007-08 edition, which is current. Subsequent editions were issued temporarily but recalled. So some things, like "membership of an Eagle BOR is determined by local council policy" gets replaced by a longer statement which includes: The board of review for an Eagle candidate is composed of a minimum of three members and a maximum of six members, 21 years of age or older. These members do not have to be registered in scouting... - ACP&P (bold is in the original) Additionally, ACP&P goes on to state: The candidate's unit leader introduces him to the members of the board of review. The unit leader may remain in the room, but does not participate in the board of review. The unit leader may be called on to clarify a point in question - ACP&P, emphasis mine I'm not sure where you're gettin' your other statements, whether those are just your opinion or whether you took 'em from somewhere. It might be yeh have one of da copies of the ACP&P document which was recalled. But da current version states that The review has three purposes: * To make sure the work has been learned and completed. * To see how good an experience the Scout is having in his unit. * To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. - ACP&P Havin' dealt with a lot of law and policy in my life, there are a few fundamental errors that are often made. One is just not knowing the "rules" that well. The other is not takin' the time to really understand how both the rules and the system that makes and uses the rules really work in order to provide justice for society. Happily, Scouting is about kids, not about rules, eh? Beavah

Yah, depends a bit on da state, BadenP. Some states require a physician-level medical control officer to sign off on camp procedures. It's a good general practice other places, too, but that doesn't mean it's actually done in other places BartHumphries, da camp medical screening is at best a brief interview and check of the health records for a boy. It doesn't count as the Class III physician physical required for high adventure trips. If yeh have uninsured kids, there are a number of options for annual physicals. Check with the school district, they often have physicians who do sports physicals for kids annually. Check with your council office or CO, often they can identify a physician who will give a physical to a youth in need for free. Check with DSS in your area for the free clinics, most areas have 'em for people in need. And they might also have information on obtaining low-cost health insurance for children either under the new health care bill or some other program. Few things better you can do for the lads in Scouting than to see that they have access to medical care. Beavah

Stuff not used can be forgotten in three months time Yet we only require one swim check per year. If a lad really knows how to swim, do we really think he's goin' to forget how in three months? Around here, da lakes are frozen for more than 3 months. We also don't seem to have trouble with any young fellows forgetting how to ride a bike over the winter either. Which should we be doin' in Scouting... teaching kids to swim, or teaching kids to get by on the swim test? Teaching 'em how to ride a bike, or preparing 'em for Monday night's cycling test at da troop meeting? The brain is really great at long term memory and retention if yeh really learn something. It's only the short-term cram stuff that is transient, but that's not Scouting. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, Calico, I disagree. Scouting is not school, eh? Nor should it be. From what da kids tell me, the norm in school is to cram for each test, eh? I don't think things have changed much in 50 years . So they never really learned to proficiency during the semester. Instead, the system is set up to let 'em get by with something less than really learning. And like any good teenagers, they're going to play the system. Scouting should be different, eh? The Scouting standard for rank advancement is proficiency in outdoor skills, not cram for the quiz on Tuesday's meeting so I can forget it by the following Tuesday. If yeh let 'em do the cram-and-forget thing, then yeh aren't doing good Scouting. I reckon it's been a few years since I actually started a fire myself, eh? The scouts usually do it . But I could start a fire right this minute if someone asked me to. Been 6 months since I did any real off-trail map and compass navigation for any distance, but I could do it tomorrow. I have to renew my AHA CPR cert next month (2 year renewal), but I could handle someone coding on the street this afternoon if need be. That's what Scouting should be. Learning to proficiency. We expect when we give a lad a BSA Lifeguard certification that it's good for 3 years, eh? They've learned well enough that they won't need a refresher for three whole years and will still be able to save someone's life. That's a far cry from learn it this week, forget it next week. Beavah

Nah, BartHumphries, I don't agree with yeh this time. Both of your examples involve an awful lot of time, eh? Yah, you were once proficient in da clove hitch, but if yeh go for decades, yeh might forget, especially as we old folks have brains that are slowly decaying, eh? . But that's not true of young people over da course of a few months or years, instead of decades. If they can't do it 6 months later, then they never really were proficient in da first place. That's my objection to TNScoutTroop, eh? If a lad can't do it down the road a ways, the problem isn't the boy not maintaining proficiency, the problem is that the troop never taught and tested him to proficiency in da first place. So what they need to look at is fixing that, eh? Yah, sure, yeh can also establish a notion of personal honor, where if yeh discover yeh really can't do something you either work your tail off to fix it or you surrender your badge until you do. But that should also apply to the SM and adult leaders, eh? So when yeh take that boy's badge away, yeh take away the SM's and the BOR's privileges until they can demonstrate the ability to teach and recognize real, long-term proficiency in youth. Sauce for the goose, eh? Beavah

Yeh can develop "fixed" jobs if yeh feel yeh need to, JerseyScout. It might help yeh get goin'. Da best way, though, is to have the PL identify something that needs doin' and assign someone to it permanently... or to identify a patrol member who has a particular interest or skill and have him take over a set of tasks that fit his interest. In other words, tailor the jobs to the real jobs a patrol has and da real people it has in it, rather than come up with a more generic list. It's OK if one patrol has a "nature expert" and another doesn't, or if one patrol has a patrol Quartermaster and another has two because the PL feels it's a big job and there are two guys who are interested. If yeh help the PL experiment and try things out, he's going to feel more ownership and is goin' to learn more about leadership than if yeh give him a list of jobs to fill. Of course, same could be said about TLT and da SPL Beavah

Nah, I disagree. I'll agree that I don't think Cub Scouting builds character. I think Cub Scouting is in a lot of ways just a family activity that adds some opportunities for parents to work with their kids in different settings. But by the time a boy is an adolescent, his peer relationships are contributing as much to his character development as his family is contributing. As a teen, even more. And what good scouting provides is an ideal environment to develop character and a range of "peers" from younger through adult. So good, well-done Boy Scouting genuinely will develop character in ways that I personally feel are more complete and robust than other youth activities. There's nothing quite like what yeh learn arguing with your patrol mates over who is going to do the dishes. There are more chances for judgment and decision-making in Scouting than most other youth activities, and the feedback from being close to each other in a challenging environment is much tighter than it is in-town. Act a bit selfish with your buddies in town and yeh might get some feedback on it over da course of a year. Act a bit selfish in da field and you're going to hear about it much more quickly. Leave the dishes dirty, they stay in the sink or mom cleans them. Leave the dishes dirty and da bear or da fire ants visit. In a good Scouting program, eh? Not all units do a great job of it. But I've met enough youth and adults who have said "A big part of who I am and what I value came from Scouting" to believe that done well, Scouting really does teach character. Beavah

Don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Beavah's "pick up the books & read 'em" comment was focused not on outdoor skills, but on learning how the BSA works. Yah, exactly. Not sure how yeh missed that I was suggesting proficient outdoor skills, proficient youth skills, and things like Wilderness First Aid and LNT Trainer as necessary, BadenP. But when it comes to BSA program stuff - da advancement program, troop organization, how to fill out a Tour Permit, that sort of thing - it's just as easy to read about it. Da problem is that the BSA training isn't sufficient to reach the skill set you and I both feel is necessary to avoid putting the boys "in possible jeopardy." Seriously, who would trust a beginner kid in the woods with a fellow who had only had a day and a half IOLS course? B

Yah, hmmmm.... I'm sorta with BartHumphries, eh? I think most of the time when yeh see a lad whose skills aren't proficient for his rank, it's because the folks signing off on rank - youth, SM, and BOR aren't expecting proficiency in their troop. Maybe the adults or youth aren't proficient themselves, maybe they're takin' the easy way out. Whatever. I think once yeh really are proficient at something, yeh don't forget it. Leastways, not in the amount of time we're talkin' about for youth. If yeh really are proficient at starting a fire, odds are you can not go camping for 10 years and still puzzle your way through it and start a fire just fine. So if after 6 months a boy has "forgotten" a skill, it's because he was never proficient in da first place, and the troop didn't expect proficiency from him (or he scammed an easy signoff from a "weak link"). However it happened, he was shortchanged and perhaps as a man of honor he should go back and really finish his rank. Da other problem is Eagle92's #1, eh? I think some skills are maybe not used much by some troops, so they don't really care to teach 'em to proficiency. Presumably kids get proficient in setting up tents, but maybe not in map & compass navigation if they only do car camping, eh? Or maybe not in fire building if they live in one of da areas where there are burn bans most of the year. Or maybe not in knot tying if all their gear is modern nylon and velcro . That to my mind is partly a problem with da troop program, and partly a problem with da requirements, eh? The requirements should be things that a boy needs to be proficient in to be a good outdoorsman and citizen in his unit. The unit might need to do more backpacking to make map & compass worthwhile, eh? At da same time, if a requirement says yeh have to climb 1000 feet and yeh live in Florida, yeh probably aren't going to get proficient in that . I think most units have older scouts teaching younger ones, but relatively few have older scouts teaching younger ones well. Teachin' is a whole separate skill to learn, and most units really don't teach lads how to teach (beyond that trite EDGE thing). I think many units have youth leaders sign off on T-2-1, eh? But if they never really became proficient themselves, or weren't taught high expectations for their own signoffs, it's easy for 'em to be a "nice guy" and not be too strict on signoffs. Beavah

Exactly, nolesrule! Committee structures are all over da place. Some use small CO committees, some use ex officio, some include all parents (registered or not). No easy way to write guidelines for this stuff, eh? No way to tell what they call different roles or who they assume are servin' or whatnot. And da BSA can't write "rules" for this stuff, because that would be treading on the CO's turf and exposing itself to liability we don't want. Yeh can't tell a CO how to structure its committee operation unless yeh want to assume responsibility for that operation. So we get back to readin' all the materials to figure out the purpose, eh? And the purpose is adult association. Not bureaucracy. Not program evaluation. Helpin' individual kids learn and grow. All the guidebooks make sense and are in agreement if yeh read 'em in that light. Beavah

the requirements from joining to First Class are nothing to sneeze at, even with what some regard as an Accelerated program, it still is expected to take one year to get to First Class. Then add in the requirments to get from First CLass to Eagle. There is 1 year and 4 months of POR (POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY) to do. Yah, let's see... that makes 2 years and four months. Round it up to three. A Middle School program, like Gern says. Why would any self-respecting high school fellow want to hang around after that? Unless he's a bit young/immature for his age, and he needs the familiarity of a middle school program to build confidence as its "top dog." That's the way some (I'd even say a majority) of troops run, eh? If the positions of responsibility are such that a 12-13 year old can do them, then they aren't going to be a challenge for a 15-17 year old. And in all likelihood, in order to stay age appropriate, things are goin' to be strongly "adult guided." Beavah

I think yeh do see some fine troops out there that keep almost all their older boys around right through high school and into college. I do, however, think that there are relatively few of 'em compared to the middle-school-focused programs that Gern describes, and that the BSA Boy Scouting program has largely (and somewhat deliberately) shifted toward being a middle-school appropriate program exclusively. I disagree with the common saw that the older boys don't want to be around the younger boys. In da troops that seem to be successful keeping older boys, that's not at all the case. The older fellows like the challenge and responsibility of working with the younger guys. Real responsibility is something that teens crave, but they easily see through "fake" responsibility and make-work / babysitting. So usually when yeh have a middle-school-focused troop it's because the adults don't know how to work with the high school kids. Probably they've set up the rapid-advancement thing and such so that the middle school program is lively, but they don't know how to make da switch as a lad grows. Sorta like some cub scout leaders can't get their brains to switch to a middle school mindset. Da key ingredient for high schoolers seems to be genuine challenge and responsibility. I think many of the Venturing Crews don't get that, either, eh? They just become a boy scouting program for older girls, for whom that is a challenge of sorts because they didn't have a good middle school outdoor program. Some Boy Scout leaders also think that "high adventure" trips are the key, but I don't agree with that either. Lots of high adventure trips are just packaged vacations not real challenges. And yeh can have all kinds of real challenges without ever going "high adventure." But da thing is that in order to have a high-school-like level of challenge, it does take more time, eh? Same as high school sports take more time and commitment than middle school sports, or high school theater takes more time and commitment than middle school theater. No self-respecting teen wants to keep doing the same level of thing they did in middle school, no matter what the activity is. Beavah

Yah, I think this thread is just a bit off. Took me a few minutes to figure out why I felt that way. I think it's da wrong question. I think the right question is "How much skill and ability is needed to serve?" Lots of folks come with skills and abilities that are current, fresh, and well beyond what any training offers. Lots of folks take training and don't really develop the necessary skills. Maybe they should take training a few times, or maybe they just need more coachin' in the field. Da thing is, when I see successful troops and great adult leaders, there's often not a particularly good correlation to training. The things that sorta stand out is how much they care and enjoy what they're doing, how well they are able to relate to and listen to kids, and how sound their outdoor skills and judgment are. But if I were to answer Scoutfish's question, I'd say an adult scouter or at least the SM/trip leader for each outing should have enough skills and fitness to be able to do the outing activity in her or his sleep. Plus have enough first aid / bad behavior / "emergency" knowledge to deal with those things as they come up. So if it's a car campout, the adult leader should have enough skills and judgment that the worst possible weather doesn't affect her or him in any significant way, that their LNT practice is sound, and they've got the first aid knowledge to deal with the parent who puts an axe into their foot or pours boiling water down their boot calmly and skillfully. If it's a canoe campout, they should have enough fitness and skill to be able to manage a canoe on their own if need be with complete confidence, be able to assist others, and exercise good judgment on the river. If they don't, they should take whatever trainin' they feel they need, or hire appropriate outside leadership. If I were to "require" specific training for Boy Scouting, it would be Wilderness First Aid and Leave No Trace Trainer, and maybe ARC Lifesaving for water stuff. But those only get at a few of the skills. There's really no good trainin' I can point to that offers "how to relate to teenagers and manage behavior", and no BSA training that's really adequate for developing outdoor skills from scratch. Better to find a college outdoors program or local outdoor club or somethin' like that to pick up those skills. The last bit of course is "how BSA program works", but honestly I think pickin' up and reading the books is better than any of the training sessions. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The ACP&P actually states: This board of review is made up of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee. (emphasis in original). Yah, and then it goes on to say: "One member serves as chairman, usually the committee member responsible for advancement. Unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a scout's board of review. (emphasis in the original)" So why would it have to add the bit about unit leaders if we were talking about registered committee members? Unit leaders and assistant unit leaders can never be registered committee members, so adding that is pointless. Unless yeh read the broader bit in da BOR training and realize that there can be ex officio members of da committee, who might include the SM or COR or other members of the community. Then the second boldface makes sense. Even as an ex officio committee member, the scoutmaster can't sit on a board of review, but the COR or another ex officio member can. Plus yeh add in OGE's and FScouter's comments, and plainly nowhere does it specify "registered" in clear language. Real point of course is that a BOR is a method of adult association, and yeh have to make it work like that for the kids. How yeh do that well is goin' to depend a bit on your committee structure. An LDS unit with a three-person church committee might need more "ex officio" parents serving on BORs to do the proper job with adult association than a unit that signs up every parent as a Committee Member. Beavah

You are a complex person beavh, the vast majority of your post in context say do whats right for the scouts. I'm lost at why you don't respond that way in this discussion. Its black and white to me, what is your gray area that I don't see? Maybe I'm just a confused person, Eagledad. This thread was meant to be a generic discussion about the attitude that not getting an award or recognition is "punishment". I was tryin' to avoid the hijack back to the topic of the original thread about the committee, which I think is what you're referring to? In that case what we have is a SM who is venting to a district trainer about his troop committee, and da question is what we should say to the Scoutmaster that will be best for the kids. On the one hand, a lot of folks think the best thing to say to the Scoutmaster is that the Committee is wrong/awful/stupid/punishing kids, based on the Scoutmaster's version of the tale while venting. Jump in on the Scoutmaster's side, pour some more fuel on the fire of a trivial adult argument, and watch a troop burn to the ground. Personally, I don't think that's best for the kids. I think what's best for the kids is to pour water on a trivial adult argument, eh? To help the SM see that the committee has a good point, and good intentions, and a role to play, and help him understand their perspective isn't totally off base. And if I were talkin' to the committee, I'd help 'em understand that the SM has a good point, and good intentions, and a role to play, and help 'em understand that he isn't totally off base either. Try to get 'em back on the course of being on the same page, respecting each other, and workin' together. I think that's what's best for da kids, because adults sharing a vision and developing a good sense of perspective and mutual respect is vastly more important to a troop than whether boys get "credit" for an outing that none of 'em are likely to need for advancement anyways. Or put another way, which is the better example to the boys? The SM who throws a fit, runs around complainin', takes his marbles and goes off to form another troop? Or the SM who takes a deep breath, says "yeah, the committee has a right to push the leaders to be fully trained" and then sits with the boys and explains that, then promises to do better and see that they do even more camping? In both cases he disagrees with the call, but which is the better model of character? This thread was meant to be a different, broader perspective version of that, eh? When we use advancement to help kids grow in character, what are we teaching? Are we teaching that they're entitled to awards? Are we teaching that what adults do is play the sea lawyer and argue small details of the regulations until they're screaming at each other in righteous indignation? Or are we teaching 'em that an award is something some one else gives you when they recognize your skill, ability, and character? Is recognition something that others owe you, or is it something else? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think band was just something new for him, a new challenge that he's gotten good at. Scouting for him was the thing for him during middle school. He put 100% into it, Philmont, SeaBase, NTeirs, OA, NYLT, staffed NYLT, Okpik, Eagle. After he mastered it, he looked for a new challenge and band was it. The above comment was from Gern in da parent thread to this one. (Thanks, Gern, for sharing!). I think it's pretty telling - his son moved on when Scouting was no longer a challenge for him, and band (with its higher level of commitment) was the "next" challenge. Personally, I think it takes more time and effort to teach character than it does to teach how to march around a field. So are we shortchanging our mission when we don't follow acco's and BrentAllen's example? They seem like they're trying to match age-appropriate challenges with age-appropriate levels of expectation and commitment, eh? That seems like what Gern's son was looking for, and what Engineer61 is describing as a weakness of Scouting compared with band. We don't offer high enough expectations or challenge to really teach character to older boys. Beavah

LOL. As usual, I'm with John-in-KC. But let's go back to the list. 1) Is registration required? Seems like we all agree the answer is "no", based on da quote from AlFansome's read of the BOR training supplemental, and the fact we can't find it written anywhere else. In fact, even in ACP&P, right after talking about boards being conducted by members of the troop committee, it goes on to add that unit leaders and assistant unit leaders cannot serve on the board. Of course, unit leaders and assistant unit leaders can never be registered members of the committee, so why would they bother writin' that? Except unit leaders are often ex officio members of da committee, eh? So the proper read seems to be that BORs are conducted by troop committee members, whether registered or ex officio or community folks associated with the troop, but not by unit leaders or relatives. 2) Is the function of the Troop Committee to review the unit program? Not in the Troop Committee Guidebook or TC Training. 2a) Then what's the proper way to read NealonWheels or AlFansome's quotes from ACP&P/BOR supplemental? I think it's clear from the context. The stated purposes of a board of review in ACP&P are 1) to make sure the boy has learned, 2) to see how his experience in the troop has been, and 3) to encourage him. Given that, when yeh read the quotes in context, yeh realize that what they're talking about is that the BOR should find ways to help the boy, not to evaluate the unit program. In other words, ways of directing unit resources to a particular lad who isn't advancing, or who has special interests, or needs more encouragement. As John-in-KC says, it's a form of adult association, eh? Not a form of program evaluation. That's why the spot where NealonWheels quote comes from is da section talking about non-advancement boards of review, eh? It's all about trying to help individual boys. 3) Can the unit leader sit in on a BOR as an observer? I think there's a contradiction here between the supplementary BOR trainin' and da ACP&P, but hat's off to AlFansome for findin' it! Personally I disagree with da notion of not letting the unit leader observe. Just seems rude to me, especially as a council fellow. I always let a SM stay to observe an EBOR, and I'm not sure why a lower BOR would be any different (other than that they're often conducted at troop meetings where the SM is busy with other things). If our purpose is really to provide insight into how to help the boy, then the person who is best to be on da BOR is the SM, not the troop treasurer. Beavah

But honestly, shortridge, it's one night of camping, eh? Is any of da strum and drang and declarations of right and wrong and calling each other numskulls and all da rest worth it for recording one night of camping? It doesn't affect a thing! Havin' a big hairy conniption over such triviality is just silly. The kids aren't going to mind going out camping some more. The committee set a precedent that got the SM (and future ASMs) to take training seriously. That's a good thing, eh? Now, maybe they should just remove the SM for being such a laggard or complainer about it and find someone better, eh? There's an argument to be made for that. But they honestly haven't hurt any kids or likely slowed even a single lad's advancement. Now, da real issue is we're talking about dropping registrations on entire units if their leaders aren't trained, eh? You think not recording a night of camping is a big deal? Just wait until we start dissolving entire troops because the key leaders aren't trained. Do yeh think that will be "punishing kids"? This is the stuff we're goin' to run into repeatedly with the "Every child deserves a trained leader" mandatory training initiative. What this unit did is downright mild compared to what we're testing out to do to the entire country. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Its not a nominal thing, the Board of Review Members are supposed to be registered Committee Members Could you find a citation anywhere in da BSA literature where it states "registered" Committee members? And if we really feel it's that important, why do we explicitly allow and encourage non-scouting community members on Eagle Boards of Review? Remember, the function the Board of Review is as much a review of the Troops program as it is the Scout. Can yeh find anything in da BSA literature which states that review of the Troop's program is a function of the Troop Committee at all? It certainly isn't listed as a responsibility of da Committee in the Guidebook, eh? Or in da Committee training materials. ACP&P contains one indirect sentence on the matter, but that's more with respect to general and non-advancement reviews, eh? But if that's the case, can yeh explain why the Eagle BOR, which would be the best one to sit on for program evaluation, is not included? And why in many places is done by da district, not the unit committee at all? That's why the Scoutmaster and Asst Scoutmaster's are not allowed in, so the youth feels free to talk. Can you find any statement anywhere in da BSA literature which says or even suggests that the SM or ASM are not allowed in or otherwise forbidden from observing any BOR? Of course, those are all loaded questions, eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Witholding a rightfully-earned award, especially due to arbitrary and artificial reasons, most certainly is punitive. I'm sorry, I must have missed somethin'. Did the committee hold a BOR that voted unanimously that an award was due? That's when a rank is "rightfully earned", eh? And sometimes not even then, since if da council registrar discovers that the lad really didn't have the required number of MBs recorded prior to the date of the BOR, then the rank will be disallowed. What this thread is talkin' about has almost nothing to do with any BSA awards. It has to do with credit toward nights of official troop camping. Honestly, does anybody ever earn Second Class or First Class or Camping MB with the minimum number of official nights? Aside from da rare lad with lots of skills before he joins, if yeh see that goin' on yeh know it's a badge mill program and they're subtracting from da other requirements. The committee decides what is an official troop event. Da Scoutmaster certifies on OA and rank within that. Same deal for the MBC. Is the case that moosetracker describes the way any of us wants to see a unit run? Of course not. The SM and the TC should get on the same page. Does it help if outsiders start feedin' the fire of the SM or the Committee so that it's harder for them to get on the same page? Nope, not a lick. And a Scout is helpful. Beavah

When someone goes camping to mark the person as camping for 3 days and 2 nights is not really an award, it is just accounting the facts of what they did. Yah, so what's da difference between that and arguin' balls and strikes with the umpire? Yeh just are disputing the "facts" with whoever is makin' a call on what "fact" should be recorded. Arguin' balls and strikes isn't noble and righteous, it's petty. Really all you're doin' is disrupting the game for everybody. In Scouting you are entitled to an award... Yah, hmmm.... Just different views I guess. I think the notion of being entitled to the recognition of others is "just plain wrong." It teaches the wrong thing about character and values in my mind. Just MHO, of course. That's not quite what we're talkin' about anyway, eh? Because a Scouting award is not "earned" unless the boy has learned the skills and met the proficiency and spirit requirements as determined by da SM and a unanimous board of review. I don't think anybody is suggesting that someone not get the patch after the BOR has ruled unanimously in his favor (unless in da intervening week the lad shoots someone). What we're talkin' about are cases where either the SM or the committee/BOR have not unanimously determined that the lad has learned the skills and met the requirements. So the award has not yet been "earned" in the eyes of the umpires. But I think da most important thing for Scouting is whether an award has been earned in the eyes of the other scouts. So many times yeh see adults who do what jblake describes, and give awards out so a boy does not feel bad, or because he's "entitled", or so they don't feel like they should "punish" him. That only cheapens the award, eh? Because da respect of your peers has to be earned first, before any award which is a token of that respect is valid. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)