Beavah

Yah, RichardB, sometimes yeh worry me mate. I'm sure yeh realize that injurin' a grand total of 8 people total over all da user-days of use of slip-and-slides represents an injury rate that's statistically trivial. Also makes a good data point for @@Stosh's view about excessive government. As a young lad, I had a friend who broke his back while sleddin' down a hill. He had a history of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and was a bigger fellow. He hit a jump with some speed and landed hard and broke his back. It was a freak thing, and he recovered fine. Old folks and even young folks with some medical issues are susceptible to injuries from fallin' down and hittin' the ground, eh? And lots of folks suffer head, neck and back injuries from sleddin'. Way more than from slip-and-slides. In fact, we've killed a few scouts that way, eh? Still, we haven't banned sledding. Why not? I hope it's because we recognize in da bigger scheme of things sleddin' isn't that significant a risk. Slip-and-slides, even less so, eh? But nuthin' is risk free. Awareness of risks? Now that's a good thing. Are yeh ever goin' to tell us what da risks are from bubble ball? Da risk of us old critters lookin' goofy? Beavah

Yah, Stosh, but we tried to warn you, eh? Yeh just weren't willin' to listen. Boys need coachin', eh? They can take on a lot of stuff, but it takes time to build troop cultures like that. It takes time to educate parents, time to build traditions of youth leadership, and all the rest. @@Adamcp isn't leadin' the well-developed troop with da long tradition of Patrol Method and Youth Leadership and parental support, eh? He's fairly new to the game, and the boys are fairly new to the game. Sink-or-swim sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, but it's usually not the best way. The better way is for adults to carefully provide a structure for boys to work within, and active coachin' as needed. Not take over, just provide da level of structure and quiet support that's needed for the boys to succeed (or fail within certain boundaries). As the lads take over more an the troop culture becomes stronger, then the adult support can fade, eh? And if yeh lose a big group of older boys the adult support comes back in a bit while da next generation of leaders gets on their feet. Dependin' on the existin' troop culture, open patrol reorganization can work well, or it can lead to some kids feelin' awful as the last picked, or it can lead to jocks vs. nerds. Most often, yeh get same-age patrols because every other activity from school to sports that the boys participate in is age-segregated. It's all they know, eh? The old notion of bein' a gang or a bunch of neighborhood kids is gone from their lived experience.... and forgotten by their parents. It takes time to build youth and troop culture so that the boys are really lookin' out for each other and really doin' OK with leadership and not votin' a lad they don't like off the island. It takes time to help parents learn somethin' that used to be natural, but now is counter-cultural. Bein' right about da potential for youth leaders and patrols isn't worth a lot if we fail, eh? Beavah

Hiya Adamcc! Da notion of rotatin' leadership positions or clearin' out leadership positions or havin' a "senior patrol" as a parkin' spot for older boys is almost always an adult, troop-method notion, eh? In da modern BSA system the PLC is supposed to be the "Senior Patrol", eh? The title is a holdover from the past. The SPL is not supposed to be leadin' his own separate Senior Patrol, he's supposed to be leadin' the PLC. Rotatin' leadership is one of da worst ideas I've ever seen for troops. It comes from Advancement Run Amok, where yeh deliberately break up the natural leaders and patrols in order to give boys artificial positions for advancement. So, I'd say... 1) No, boys should be allowed and even encouraged to run again if they're interested. They should be encouraged to take their patrol "to the next level". 2) I think the lads should form patrols first, but I don't think this question is really that important. I'd leave it up to how da PLC wants to proceed. However, I do think you're missin' something important. Generally speakin', I'd try to not break up successful patrols, eh? Whole troop "patrol reorganizations" are a bad thing to get in a habit of, as they really break the Patrol Method. Patrols should be permanent, with their own character and a real sense of loyalty. Patrol yells and slogans and all da rest are things that patrols develop over a longer stretch of time, eh? They're a product of identity and loyalty, not a precursor. If yeh need to add a patrol, the most common thing is to have the PLC recruit or appoint one of the best scouts they can find who wants the challenge of startin' a new patrol, then he gets to recruit boys into that new patrol, eh? No more than a couple from each existing patrol, but the boys usually work that out. That way the old patrols keep their identities and character, and yeh put together da ingredients for a strong new patrol to join 'em. Yeh preserve da Patrol Method. Now, in your case maybe the lads also do somethin' about breakin' up the one non-functioning patrol and startin' two new patrols that two boys can recruit people into, but at least your other workin' patrols maintain their core people, their identity, and their strong leaders. It also means you're usin' your best, most committed kids well in the place where all real Scoutin' happens, eh? The Patrol. Not some parkin' area for older boys to be bored in. Yeh spent a hard year gettin' kids to start seein' the Patrol thing work, eh? Don't break it now just because the lads have never seen how to do this before and will naturally fall back on old habits. Da Patrol Method was based off of Baden-Powell's experience with British public school "house system", eh? Just like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books. Yeh don't see Hogwarts dissolving Gryffindor or puttin' all the House Prefects into some sort of Senior Patrol do yeh? Beavah

Yah, @walkinthewoods, I like it! Well, most of it anyways. I think there's a strong case to be made for just givin' poor folks money rather than lots of bureaucratic hoops to jump through. I reckon there's a strong case for allowin' choice and da markets to drive things that are optional purchases or purchases where havin' choice to better fit your own needs makes sense, like education. Not quite with yeh on some other things, though. I don't want all da highways to be privatized. Leads to different rules, different standards, lots of private fees that increase da friction of trade and make da economy weaker. Same with da FAA, who lays down the highways of the air. Best to have only one, eh? And one whose mission is to treat everybody equally, not just serve higher-payin' customers. Only one police force, not lots of private ones too, eh? Medicine is probably it's own special case as well, eh? Let's face it, health care when you're sick or injured is not an optional purchase. Da only time it's optional is when it's for preventive care, and that's exactly when yeh don't want it to be optional because lack of preventive care ups da cost for all of society. Lack of preventive care also lets new disease mutations grow and thrive that can affect everybody, eh? Seems like da school voucher system for medical care is what yeh want, but then that's pretty much da basis of da ACA. Just for fun, let's bring it back around to da BSA, though. Seems like you'd be advocatin' for a smaller national office, less GTA/G2SS/etc. regulations, and more local market choice with different kinds of troops takin' different approaches. Sound about right? Beavah

Yah, @@Cambridgeskip, this is da fun stuff for us scouters, eh? What I'll do lots of times is come over and start talkin' to the boys. "Hey, Joe, how many times have you set up this kind of tent?" "Seven, Mr. Beavah!" "Awesome. Thanks for takin' your time to help Billy Newscout practice. Practicin' and lettin' him take time to learn is really important. Mr. Meddlesome and I are just goin' to get out of your way now and let yeh get on with it. Do you mind if we watch, though? We might learn a few of your tricks for doin' it in the rain." Then take Mr. Meddlesome aside to "watch", but really to gently clue in about da program. Of course if it's a mixed-age patrol with an older PL, then yeh can really have some fun.... "Hey Joe, it seems like Mr. Meddlesome thinks it's best to set up da tent sideways to da wind. Can yeh explain to him why that's not a good idea, and why you're doin' what you're doin'?" Then let Joe run a few circles around Mr. Meddlesome. At that point, when yeh take Mr. Meddlesome aside, yeh can say "Yah, Joe there... he's probably got over 100 nights of campin' in all kinds of conditions, eh? He's an ace canoeist too and an honor roll student, and a lifeguard and a wilderness first aider. Da magic of Scoutin' is that your son gets to spend time with older fellows like that to teach him and to look up to. Your son can imagine himself someday bein' like Joe, and workin' hard for that. He can't imagine himself ever bein' an old guy like you or me. Someday soon, he's goin' to be Joe for a younger scout, and I reckon you'll just about burst with pride. So let's let 'em get on with it, eh? Come have a cup of coffee. Beavah

Yah, well, I reckon I'm not always that clear, eh? I think our first duty is to higher principles, eh? God and Country in da Oath and such. Our duty in Scoutin' is to our Chartered Organization if we're unit Scouters, and to da CO's mission for youth. Our duty as council or national scouters is to da Mission and Aims of the BSA. Da rules, laws, policies, guidelines, historical practices, local adaptations and all da rest serve those various purposes, eh? They don't serve themselves. So it's never OK to apply a rule or practice or whatnot in a way that harms da Aims, Goals, and Principles, eh? We should never teach boys that da rules are what counts most, because it leads to disrespect for da rules, eh? Rules that don't serve higher purposes aren't worthy of respect. That's the BSA's position, eh? Da BSA wants us to teach character, fitness, and citizenship. The Rules & Regulations say explicitly that all da other rules, policies, guidelines, support materials and whatnot must be applied in ways that harmonize with those Aims. Education is our mission, and education is da only cardinal rule of BSA Advancement. So da question in each case is how we apply or interpret da various program guides so as to help this particular boy and group of boys develop character, fitness, and citizenship if we're council or national scouters, or how we apply da BSA program to help this particular boy and group of boys to develop in da ways our CO wants if we're unit scouters. I don't reckon it's ever OK to say "I was just followin' da rules" if our interpretation of da rules is narrow, and crabbed, and contrary to da goals, eh? It teaches disrespect for da rules. In this case we've got a fairly normal helicopter parent complaint, eh? Da question isn't "what rule can we quote and how many bad names can we call da Scoutmaster?". Da question is "what is the best way to be helpful, and to support da growth of this particular boy and da other boys in this program? I gently submit to yeh that in 99 cases out of 100, da best thing to tell the parent is to think about da lessons of sportsmanship and courtesy and respect they want their son to learn, and how much time they really think it's right to demand from a man or woman who are givin' their time for free. Good scouters and trainers and commissioners don't pour fuel and oxygen on da flames of unit conflicts, eh? We pour water. We know that unit conflicts can harm da Scoutin' program for a lot of boys, so we don't wind folks up and send 'em off to fight to da finish about interpretations of kids' program guides. Instead we get people calmed down and reflective and thinkin' about da Aims we share. That's how we serve Scoutin' best. For da rest, when it's just friends around da campfire we can discuss da merits of NSP vs traditional patrols, or full uniforms vs. pride in scoutin' identity the way it's done internationally. We can argue to our heart's content about whether a lad with a First Aid MB should actually be able to do first aid, or whether da badge means he sat through a Saturday mornin' class and ticked off just da requirements, no more, in one-and-done group style. Those are good discussions, eh? If we're honest about it, there are lots of different ways of approachin' such things successfully. Just because da troop in da next town over doesn't do it our way doesn't mean that they're doin' it wrong. Beavah

Nah. If yeh think that, then yeh aren't usin' the Advancement Method the way the BSA intends, eh? The Methods are all related to each other. More important, da Methods are all applied to da goals of teachin' character, fitness, and citizenship, eh? All those other things yeh learned (or teach) in trainin', they all go together, eh? That's how da Scoutin' program works. So my question to you is how yeh think a parent should respond to his or her lad's teacher/coach/referee/scoutmaster when that other adult in the boy's life makes a judgment call, eh? Especially when that judgment call is "Hey, Joe, we haven't seen yeh around in quite a while. I'm not comfortable signin' off for you to receive our highest award for Scouting when I really haven't seen yeh out Scouting at all lately, and yeh haven't met our troop's participation requirements." Remember, it was da BSA that changed da "rules" and allowed troops to set participation requirements, exactly like da BSA changed da rules and added Cooking MB. What's your response to the parent who asks that question? It's not da Scoutmaster askin' how to handle a piece of advancement paperwork, eh? We'd answer differently if it was the SM askin' questions. It's a parent venting and askin' how to best help their son. Goin' on a few campouts to meet da troop's participation expectations to my mind is trivial. It's fun. It's Helpful. It shows Loyalty and commitment to da Patrol and Troop, eh? It's consistent with what we want to teach. Yellin' at da referee ain't. Even if we think da ref is makin' a bad call, a parent stormin' onto da field and hollerin' at da ref is poor sportsmanship. A kid playin' rulebook lawyer I personally think is poor citizenship too, eh? Teaches da wrong thing about laws and lawyers Beavah

Yah, in legal philosophy there's law (rules) and equity (fairness), eh? Law (rules) has it's problems, yeh know. It's really hard to write good laws or rules. It's impossible to write laws or rules that work for all situations. Not human laws anyways. We humans just aren't that smart, and when we try to specify all da permutations we create really long complicated laws that are unworkable. So from Aristotle onward in just societies there's always been a notion of equity. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about it for Christendom, but I reckon Jesus had him beat by over a thousand years. People don't serve the law; the law is there to serve people. Because human law isn't perfect, each of us has an obligation to correct our application of da law to make sure the law (or rule) serves its just and desired end. That's not breakin' the law so much as it is perfecting it. For Aristotle it meant yeh should behave as though the lawmaker were really there. So if yeh don't think da state legislature meant to expel a Boy Scout for havin' forgotten about an axe from his weekend campout in his car, yeh don't expel him. Even if the law says you must. St. Thomas went further and said it was a virtue and obligation to correct human law for justice's sake even if da lawgiver intended the law to be used exactly as worded. Correctin' the application of the law is a virtue. It shows respect for the law, by makin' the law respectable. In our system, we put in all kinds of opportunities for correction of laws, eh? A victim can choose not to press charges. A prosecutor can decide not to prosecute. A jury can ignore da law and vote "not guilty". The Executive can commute da sentence or issue a pardon. We even have equity actions that can be brought to court which allow a judge to issue injunctions to modify, suspend, or nullify da application of a regulation or law. It's only in unjust or ineffective systems that folks follow laws or rules blindly without sometimes makin' corrections. In Scoutin', we're just a kids' program, eh? It's nowhere near civil or criminal law, and we shouldn't pretend it is. Folks should just do what they need to in order to teach kids, while bein' mindful of da value of sharing some standards and practices with others who are also workin' with kids. Sharin' standards and practices are good things in general, eh? They make for community and better program. Lots of times, though, yeh need to be mindful of such things and then do somethin' different. So no harm, no foul @@MattR (or @Stosh). You're doin' what we're here for, and that's teachin' kids. If yeh play this Scoutin' game long enough you'll find sometimes that yesterday's rule-breaker becomes today's changed rule. Most great scoutin' ideas come from da actual practice of great scouters who care about the kids more than they care about page 37 of Book #5. Beavah

Hiya @@TAHAWK, I think da article meant that it's close to an all time low as number of federal employees per number of employed Americans. Not absolute number. Da number of folks in government should be expected to increase in proportion to da general population, eh? More people means yeh need more police; more air travel means yeh need more sky marshals and FAA inspectors, etc. The federal Department of Education wasn't on my list because it's an even smaller slice of da pie, eh? Much of the DOE funding is for Pell Grants for college, plus the student loan program. With China and Russia and Europe happily paying full tuition for its qualified students to go to college (and often to come to da U.S. for their degree), you want to cut our very limited funding? Da Chinese are already eatin' our lunch. How much farther behind to yeh want da U.S. to get? The only other moderately significant items are for special education. Do yeh want to cut all the education' funding for disabled and special needs kids in da country? I certainly agree with yeh that da financial regulators were bought off or underfunded, and that da bankers and other lobbyists love huge legislation like Dodd-Frank and the ACA because with 2000+ pages of legislation there are lots and lots of loopholes. That was Congress, though, not the "bureaucrats". It's hard to work for da people when you're bein' paid by the lobbyists. Simple laws and regulation like the old Glass-Steagall Act work a lot better. At the same time, I don't understand what you're proposin' for the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/aid, and Defense. Yeh can't get to a balanced budget without restructurin' those, eh? So what's the plan? Yah, I'm all in favor of an increased fuel tax. It mystifies me why we let the Saudis and other enemies periodically destroy our domestic production and conservation efforts by drivin' the cost of gas down. It also mystifies me why we try to tell car companies what to build with CAFE regulations instead of just increasin' the tax on fuel and lettin' the market decide. Maybe people will buy more fuel-efficient cars, or maybe they'll move closer to work and buy a bike, or maybe they'll telecommute more and buy a big honking truck. We could increase da fuel tax and in one blow we'd help the environment, help domestic manufacturing by makin' fuel prices more stable and relieving 'em of regulation, pay for infrastructure and our war costs, and drive our various petro-dictator enemies (Russia, Iran, etc.) into bankruptcy. Seems simple. Congress has to act for that, eh? As close as I can tell, Congress is no longer interested in governin'. Just winning the lobbyist gravy-train. Beavah

Why would yeh think that, @@Sentinel947? Our business is helpin' kids learn and grow, eh? That doesn't stop when we wave a pencil around. A Scoutmaster may have signed off on "Scout Spirit". Then between that signoff and his BOR the lad might get caught bullying a younger scout with his fists, or he might get arrested for stealin' from a local shop. Do yeh think that the BOR must give him a rank and the troop must throw him a party because there happens to be a signature on a line? Of course not! The lad might also have had "Earn 21 Merit Badges" signed off 2 years ago, eh? Even though he's got that signoff, da BSA added Cooking MB as required. The signoff didn"t "close that avenue." Da expectations changed, and now the lad has to live up to the Cooking MB expectation in order to earn Eagle, even though he already has the signoff. Advancement is just a method, eh? It's not an entitlement, it's not an exercise in da bureaucracy of signatures and paperwork. It's a tool we use to teach. "All advancement procedures must be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America." - Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America If we aren't usin' advancement to teach well, we're doin' it wrong. Beavah

Yah, @@Stosh, I reckon it just depends whether yeh view Boy Scout ranks as entitlements or not, eh? If gettin' a Boy Scout rank is an entitlement, then if yeh don't get what's comin' to yeh you might be "screwed over". I don't see BSA ranks as entitlements, and I don't think we're playin' this Scoutin' game to teach kids to feel entitled to the time and effort and recognition of others. Just my humble opinion. I think we are bein' trustworthy when we follow the "cardinal rule" of advancement and make sure we're usin' advancement to educate kids. I think we build confidence in kids and parents when badges represent what a lad is able to do, rather than bein' an award for what he has done. I think we're followin' da rules when we we interpret advancement in the way that best advances da Aims of Scouting to promote character, fitness and citizenship. Not entitlement. I agree with @@Krampus though, eh? Most units don't really track attendance or have policies on participation. Those only come up either when some lad/family tries to take advantage and other folks get upset by that, or when a unit has gotten very lax and some better-trained folks are tryin' to put the house back in order. For the rest of da time, this stuff just sorta cruises along. Perhaps with a SM sayin' "Hey, Joe, we've all been missin' you lately. I'd love to sign yeh off for Scout Spirit, sure. I might have some time to do that on the next campout, eh? Will I see yeh there? Gee, my definition of "active" in my troops has been: you pay your registration, you're active for another year. Yeh can choose to have a definition like that, eh? Nobody's goin' to stop you, if yeh have some families who want that sort of thing. I'm not sure what you're teachin' though. Is an active student a lad who just registers for class, but never shows up? Is a good employee a fellow who signs a contract but doesn't come to work? Is an active member is someone who signs da church register, but doesn't come to Sunday services or contribute in any other way? Is that definition consistent with da values of your CO? I prefer da BSA's definition: A youth member is a youth under 18 years of age who, with the approval of a parent or guardian, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself to regularly attend the meetings; fulfills a member’s obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath; and participates in appropriate program [sic] based on the current guidelines of the Boy Scouts of America. - Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... A lot of stuff there, eh? I'm an old fellow, but I'm not one of da doom-and-gloom, the-country-is-dyin' critters. I think yeh make some fine points, @@Stosh, but there are other fine points to be made as well. All things in balance. For example, da Constitution does not really allow for a standing army, eh? To quote James Madison "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." That's why appropriations for the Army are limited to two years, unlike any other appropriation. Small-government anti-Federalists like Jefferson were always opposed to havin' a standing army. While we have used da National Guard overseas for the Middle East Wars, anybody who's been around the last 15 years knows we pretty much abused da guard and reserves. God bless those servicemen and women, but we were awfully unfair to 'em in many ways. Lots of families suffered who disproportionately bore the burden for our defense. There is a bit of caveat emptor when it comes to bankin' or buyin' food or jumpin' on an airline, eh? At the same time, I don't reckon da average citizen has the time or expertise to evaluate da derivative investments of their bank or the bacterial count in their salad or da maintenance operation of the airline servin' their town. Even if they did, they wouldn't have any time left over to work their own business, eh? That's why We the People and our representatives over the years have voted to hire experts in bankin' or food production or aviation to set rules and monitor those industries. That enables all of us to worry less about it, eh? Which in turn makes us economically more productive. We can ship our stuff by air or fly to a business meeting without worryin' that da engine will fall off, and that's a good thing. It makes us more free, not less. In fact, when we deregulate we find out that da bankers have been gamblin' our money in da markets, eh? Private individuals and private ratings agencies didn't catch 'em. We want to see 'em punished. Rightly so, I reckon. We want the laws back. We don't really want to have to spend our time and money suing the bank for years in da hope of gettin' a bit of our cash back. We really don't want to have to bail 'em out to prevent a financial meltdown. That's not "freedom". That is "private business" though, eh? Private business is often driven by short-term profits. So I'm really curious about what yeh would choose to cut, eh? Where's the "bureaucracy and waste"? Here are the big ticket items: Medicare/Medicaid: 28% Social Security: 25% Defense: 16% Veterans: 4% Transportation: 4% Food & Agriculture: 4% That's over 80% of federal expenditures, eh? Da U.S. government is essentially an insurance company with an Army. Yah, there's a bit of waste here and there, and there are some goofy lawsuits here and there, eh? People bein' people, they're sometimes not perfectly efficient and they sometimes get into disagreements over silly stuff. When yeh get right down to it, though, I reckon we want folks to take their silly disputes to court, though, rather than take 'em into their own hands. I reckon we want da bank inspector to be out there, too. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Yeh do know us beavers generally take down da trees that are part of da forest, eh? They make great dams! @@Krampus, advancement is just a method, eh? Yeh can have a fine troop and never do a lick of advancement if yeh want. That's not the same thing as Youth Protection and I reckon we both know that, eh? We also both know that da "cardinal rule" of BSA advancement is NOT "don't add to the requirements." When yeh signed up for da BSA you promised to adhere to da Charter and Bylaws and Rules and Regulations of da BSA. Those define the cardinal rule for BSA advancement, which is: "Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program." - Rules & Regulations of the BSA, Article X: Program (Advancement) Rules and Regulations So if we're goin' to refer to da "cardinal rule" then we have to ask ourselves what choice is best to help with the education of the boy and the other boys in the program? That's what BSA Advancement is really about, eh? Advancin' da education and growth of kids. Followin' that cardinal rule depends a lot on da circumstances, eh? For me as a parent, I'd want my kid to learn da lessons of respectin' da SM/referee, not procrastinatin', and that if yeh want someone to give you their time, yeh had best be willin' to give generously of your own time in return. So when I'm answerin' questions from another parent, that's where I'm goin' to lean. If da question is from the SM instead and she or he is askin' about procedures, my answer would be different, eh? Besides I reckon it's goin' to take at least as long to go through the EBOR under disputed circumstances or change troops as it is to just go on a few campouts, eh? Goin' on a few campouts seems like more fun, with more opportunities for learnin' and service. Sometimes we do stuff just because the fellow who has spent his time with us for free for the past 5 years asks us to, eh? Not because we're "required" by anything more than our honor. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Not to put too fine a point on it @@Stosh, but yeh do know that da number of folks employed by da federal government has not been goin' up, right? In fact, as a percentage of da employed population of the country, the number of federal workers is near an all-time low. Not sure where all these bloated bureaucrats are hidin'. Are you? (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-big-is-our-government-2012-7?op=1) Try this as an exercise, eh? Name who you would cut. Da Pentagon has perhaps our biggest bureaucracy. Are yeh cuttin' them? Goin' to go back to our pre-Civil War small government and disband da federal army? State militias will handle our worldwide defense like da good ol' days? Goin' to cut da FAA and leave airline safety up to da corporations who would profit off of makin' it less safe? Goin' to leave food and water safety up to da locals who try to save a few bucks and deliver leaded water to all their constituents? Goin' to trust da bankers to self-regulate? Do yeh want to trust da Chinese manufacturer to self-police their product safety? The only substantive increases in federal spending (but not workers) have been in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Can yeh explain to me how those have curtailed our freedoms? Seems like they've mostly kept elderly folks healthier and out of poverty. Now I'm a conservative fellow by nature, eh? So I reckon we do have some problems with a dysfunctional Congress that can't pass a balanced budget even in good times. Started with da notion of goin' off to war while cuttin' taxes. As a conservative fellow and a patriot, that never made any sense to me. If we're goin' off to war, that's when we increase taxes to pay for the war and for care of our veterans. We all pitch in and sacrifice together, eh? Had we done that with a fuel tax way back in 2001, America and the world would be far more secure.... and more energy independent to boot. Yah, yah, I'll also grant yeh that sometimes federal regulations look a bit like da G2SS or da G2A, eh? Takin' hundreds of pages to say stuff that's mostly obvious but to curtail freedom in some odd ways. But if we can't run a kids' program without many hundreds of pages of "rules" and an occasional squirt gun ban, I reckon it's a bit unfair to blame da FAA for takin' hundreds of pages to set da rules for all of domestic air travel. Beavah

Yah, @@CalicoPenn, I reckon that we want lads to be challenged, think creatively, and all the rest, eh? Character, Fitness, Citizenship, Service, right? Leaders in their community? One of da rare 5%? Somethin' worthy of special consideration for college admissions, military promotion, job hiring? Challenges aren't roadblocks, they're challenges. I reckon we want Eagle projects to do a few things, eh? We want 'em to be a leadership challenge for the boy, so that he gets to apply those skills we tried to teach him - budgeting and planning and communication and leadin' others and safety and such. That way he will stretch and grow. He'll also see that all those things aren't just arbitrary required hoops we had him jump through. We want 'em to be a genuine service to the community. Somethin' that others will benefit from and that a boy will feel some genuine pride and satisfaction in accomplishin'. And, too, I reckon we do want 'em to represent Scouting. Somethin' that his troop and council and all da rest of us can point to and say - "That's what Eagle Scouts do!". That's why we ask 'em to input projects into the Good Turn site, after all, and why we brag about da numbers of service hours given in da BSA's Annual Report. Beavah

Yah, @@Krampus, Advancement Method is just a method, eh? It's only one of eight Methods. I reckon if da troop totally messed up advancement but was doin' fine with everything else, they'd still get an 87.5% for a B+, eh? Or, more properly, they'd be a Journey to Excellence Gold Troop. I think it's hard to argue that a JTE Gold troop is "completely out of control". In the broad world, this sort of thing happens occasionally, eh? A troop runs down and gets lax about advancement, then a new SM tries to right the ship. Volunteers feel taken advantage of by people doin' drop-off-babysittin' and then implement participation expectations (for both youth and adults sometimes). Da BSA decides Cooking MB is important for Eagle and now all of a sudden da lad who thought he had everything done 2 years ago has an extra MB to do in addition to his project. That causes pushback from kids and families who were used to the old way. I don't know about your council, but we had some gripin' over Cooking MB. Sometimes a troop should just let an old kid slide by and worry about the young'uns, sometimes everybody's got to do the new rules. Volunteers bein' folks who don't have time to read da books cover to cover do the thing that seems natural, eh? They withhold their signature/endorsement. Sometimes they put off a SM conference because lots of troops use SM conferences as the Last Thing. Those are the normal ways people behave when they don't think they should approve somethin', eh? So we've got a clear procedure for an Eagle Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances, which is explicitly for when a SM and/or troop committee refuses to endorse da application. Everything's under control, eh? The troop is doin' what it thinks it should be doin' (not endorsing the application when they don't think they should); the district or council can then do what they should be doin' (approvin' the award if they think it should be approved). That's the system. Or, alternately, if the lad's parents think da troop is "totally out of control", "egregious" or all the rest, they can try to find another troop. Why would yeh send your boys out into the woods with adults yeh don't trust, after all? Why stay in a troop where da other parents on the Committee think you're bein' a pain? Why would a group of volunteers keep a lad on the roster if they didn't feel they had the support of da parents? That might be an answer, too. Sometimes folks just aren't a good fit. Beavah

Awesome! I wish we had some way to share great projects like this nationally, eh? A regular feature in Boys' Life on an exemplary project, perhaps? Sorta like "Eagle Scouts in Action". A regular blog on great scout projects? Somethin' to inspire kids who are comin' up to Star and Life to tackle a real need and not go for da de minimis approach to Eagle projects. Somethin' to prod troop and district adults to challenge lads to think creatively big. Beavah

Yah, nicely done @Eagle94-1. Recognitions like this are a kindness, but also a great example to others. Make a big public deal of it, eh? It's worth celebratin', and it makes da example sing louder and farther. Beavah

Yah, @@Stosh, I hear yeh when it comes to da sentiment. Two things, though. First, School Boards aren't at all outside our current code of laws, eh? They're a full part of 'em. They're an elected legislature for da school district. Just like da elected city council can pass local ordinances for da city yeh live in, the elected school board can pass local policies for da schools. That's the charge given 'em by state laws (or sometimes by state constitutions). No taxation with out representation, eh? As long as there's a school tax on da populace, da populace gets to elect representatives to legislate for the schools. Second, da zero tolerance policies in most states aren't local ones. They're passed by da state legislatures to take discretion away from local school officials and local school boards. A school official or school board that doesn't adhere to da zero tolerance policy is breaking the law. At very least it exposes 'em to enormous liability. Why do legislatures pass such things? Because somewhere some local superintendent or school board hasn't expelled a student, and that student then repeat-offended and hurt another kid. Grantin' local discretion often means that you're grantin' discretion to local folks who don't have da courage or backbone to do the right thing, or who want to give the young lad the benefit of the doubt and keep workin' with him... and then get another kid hurt, or disrupt the classroom, or... Generally speakin', legislated zero tolerance policies for things like weapons, drugs, hazing/bullying, makin' threats and the like have broad support in the general public. So if we wan't to fix da problem of zero tolerance policies, we have to convince our fellow citizens that they're a bad idea - and we have to assure 'em that da folks who will be given discretion will exercise that discretion well, eh? I agree they're a bad idea, but I also worry that not all the folks out there will use discretion well. What seems odd to me, though, is how some of the folks who are opposed to zero-tolerance policies and want local judgment and discretion for da schools at the same time think da BSA policies are absolute mandates and there shouldn't be local discretion. I don't understand that. The argument that there are bad scouters out there so we have to have rules is da same argument that the zero-tolerance folks make, eh? There are bad teachers/administrators out there so we have to have rules! Beavah

Yah, @@SSF, I'm sorry I missed this post. Still gettin' used to da new forum software. Da thread sorta wandered off into more theoretical considerations of how folks view Scoutin' and commissioner work that I reckon was less helpful for you, eh? Can I ask when your son turns 18? I agree with you that da seeming passive-aggressive nature of da response of the SM to your boy's requests can be frustratin' for both of you. It can seem like he doesn't care or whatnot. That isn't necessarily da case, eh? Lots of times with volunteers it's just that they have a lot on their plates (in real life as well as runnin' a troop). A lad who's doin' fine and has time to spare for Eagle might take a back seat to the lad who is strugglin' with depression or to a son who's gettin' bad grades in math. We're all human as well, eh? Sometimes the boy who's been around contributin' and helpin' a lot is goin' to get more attention than the boy who isn't participatin' much and who starts demandin' your time. I'd suggest your son should go to or call da council office to get the dates he needs for da application, and he's just fine to go off and get da signature from the project beneficiary. This is stuff he can and should be doin' for himself anyways. As for when the SM signs the book da procedures are different in every district. Lots of times signatures are the last things done so I wouldn't worry about it. That leaves two things. First is da MB partial, eh? Sounds like there was some miscommunication there. If the Scoutmaster was not the MB counselor for the badge, then the SM can't complete the partial for the boy. He has to go to a MBC for that badge. If he's goin' to a new MBC, it's up to that counselor whether to accept da partial. Most counselors will, but they'll ask some questions about it. So I reckon da SM looked and nodded and said nice job, and your son didn't realize that he couldn't sign off. Your son didn't get a signature on a Blue Card, right? So I'd say the best way to proceed is to go ahead and finish the badge up with a registered MBC for that badge. Second is your son's participation. Seems like what happened is your son did his six months back in 2013/14, and between then and now the troop implemented some participation expectations. That's not a surprise, because the Guide to Advancement first allowed troops to do that in 2014 if I'm rememberin' right. So what happened is that da BSA rules changed. That happens sometimes. Had your son finished up in 2014 he would have been fine; now he's in a grey area. Keep in mind that in some troops a boy's lack of participation would have led him to bein' dropped from the roster, and he'd have to apply for membership again. Your son's troop chose to keep him "alive" and registered, so they can't be too "egregious". So da question is what your goals are as a parent. Me personally, I'd make my son go participate the way the SM suggests. I reckon it's a good lesson for him about not procrastinatin' . We're all tryin' to prepare our kids for life, and whether it's work or school or whatnot this sort of thing happens a lot, eh? Ten nights of campin' means two weekends and summer camp. Seems like fun. Seems like a great opportunity to renew his contacts and friendships in Scoutin'. Seems like what an Eagle Scout might do. Yeh can also proceed with an Eagle Board of Review under disputed circumstances, once your son gets da signature of da beneficiary and finishes his last MB. This means the district takes over the review process. All yeh need to do for that is call the district advancement chair. Most districts and councils will give the lad the benefit of the doubt, even if da things fall in a grey zone. So I'd expect your son would be successful goin' this way (and his troop will drop kids from da roster more quickly in the future). Keep in mind, though, this can burn your bridges with the troop, eh? Make sure that's what yeh really want. If your son is a 16- or 17- year old, I'd really encourage yeh to make this his problem, not yours. A boy who's an Eagle Scout of that age can handle this sort of stuff, eh? And it will give him confidence to handle da slings and arrows of college professors and job bosses of various sorts. Good luck and keep us posted. Beavah

But Beavah we are talking about a very delicate situation here. Yah, @@Krampus. Exactly why it's best to proceed delicately. First, who knows how long before this kid's clock ticks to 18? Is it next year, next month, next week? We can ask. Though from da post it doesn't seem at all like we're down to da last months. Second, we have the unit totally out of control, so resolution within the unit is likely not possible. Assumes facts not in evidence. We really have no idea whether da unit is "totally out of control". Seems like there's one disaffected family. Also seems like there'd be resolution within the unit if the lad went on a few campouts. Third, how many other Scouts has or will these adults impact? How many have quit, given up or wrongly been denied advancement? If you don't bring district or council in, how will they know they have a rogue unit? National would want to know if this unit was off playing bubble ball against the prohibition, so certainly they'd want to know if the unit was violating the advancement process. Yah, RichardB is around here somewhere, eh? He may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't reckon he really wants to get any phone calls about units playin' bubble ball. That's not the way the BSA works, eh? We're a service organization. We help chartered partners and their volunteers try to do a good job with their youth program. Our Commissioners and district and council folks are first and foremost friends to da units, eh? Our job is to be patiently helpful, not to play Advancement Police or G2SS police or whatnot. Bubble ball may be no longer part of da Scoutin' program in terms of how we envision da brand, but our national H&S folks aren't ever goin' to be da bubble ball cops. In terms of advancement, it's a kids awards program, eh? Yeh can't "violate" things in a kids awards program, and a lad who doesn't advance (yet) is not failing or being denied. Units that are out doin' good things for kids but tryin' traditional patrols aren't "rogue". Folks who wear da uniform shirt with blue jeans (which I hate, BTW) aren't bein' disobedient. Just human. We're just a bunch of volunteers tryin' to do good things for kids, and nobody's perfect. Can yeh explain to me why the lad shouldn't just go on a few campouts and share his Eagle Scout talents and abilities with younger scouts, like those boys who did the same for him way back when? Seems like a fun, easy, happy "out" for everybody. The boy gets his award, with da full support of his unit. He gets to have some fun out campin'. He gets to give back to his troop and help others. The younger lads see that Eagle scouts are cool and caring and it's great to have 'em around. The younger lads are more enthusiastic about comin' to an ECOH and bein' Eagle themselves someday... way more than if they didn't really know the lad since he hasn't been participatin' since he did his six months some years ago. Seems like an easy and successful resolution to da conflict. One that teaches character and citizenship to boot! Beavah

If yeh don't think windin' up a helicopter parent and sendin' her/him back to da unit with a whole bunch of "the people on the internet said you're wrong!!" stuff is punishment for unit volunteers, yeh need to spend some more time as a unit volunteer mate! I think a discussion about da whys and hows of this sort of case would be interestin' and would get folks sharin', but I can't figure out how to spin off a new discussion in the new Scouter.Com system. Has da spin-off function gone away? Beavah

Or we can make a major commitment to teaching. Or we can work with folks to help 'em understand that they shouldn't run advancement mills. Or we can help guide 'em toward understandin' da patrol method We can choose to de-escalate conflict. We can patiently ask more questions. We can apply experience. We can give up imaginin' that anything posted on an internet forum amounts to "facts" . We can offer options. We can just listen and let 'em vent, without supportin' da notion that their SM/troop/etc. is "bad". On and on. Me personally, I've never seen anything positive come of escalatin' conflicts in units. Tends to wreck scoutin' for everybody, and lose lots of kids. So as a first choice, I'd humbly suggest we all imagine da other side of da story in a positive (or at least not evil) light, and help de-escalate da conflict. Offer perspective, ask questions, listen to ventin' but recognizin' it as such. Beavah

Just to provoke thought and reflection, eh? We can't on one hand decry da schools for zero tolerance and on the other embrace BSA policies with da same approach. There's not a lick of difference. Folks who spend lots of time on internet forums are a bit wonky, eh? They're da folks who are so into Scoutin' that they read all 120 pages of G2SS and all 100+ pages of G2A, etc. They take pride in bein' able to quote chapter and verse at folks. That's an OK thing as far as it goes. I think we have to recognize that the average volunteer doesn't do that, eh? They're focused on da kids and their own unit and just gettin' the campout runnin' and the Eagles Patrol Leader to stop bein' so bossy, all while not losin' their spouse to their Scoutin' addiction. They're runnin' troops large and small with kids and parents who are happy, kids and parents who are fine, and a few kids and parents who are upset from time to time. They aren't perfect, but I reckon we owe 'em da benefit of da doubt, eh? So yah, sure, sometimes they get technical procedure stuff "wrong" while they're tryin' to do their best, eh? Sometimes every referee makes a bad call, or they throw in a "make up call" that's not technically right, but may be appropriate in da bigger picture. That leaves us with a choice. We can thump our books and our chests and quote chapter and verse and call 'em evil wicked scouters. We can stomp our feet out onto da pitch and start hollerin' at da referee. Worse, we can snipe behind their backs like gossips and badmouth 'em and their troop and their program. That says a lot about us and about how much we value courtesy and sportsmanship and whatnot, but I'm not convinced it's helpful to anybody. Sportsmanship is how we act when we don't win or get what we want, and when the bad call goes against us. Loyalty is how we act when we think our friends are wrong or need our support. What example do we want to set for kids and families? I have my own feelings on that; I admit to bein' an old-fashioned sort of critter. I think it's somethin' that we all should reflect on, though, from time to time. Eagle's a terrible thing to give a lad if da lessons we teach in da process are not ones we should be proud of. Beavah

Yah, da zero tolerance policy folks seem alive and well in da BSA, eh?