Beavah

I am of the opinion that Scouts should be allowed to advance as quickly as possible. I realize not everybody feels that way and some of those reasons may be valid. I will say that my son has earned 15 merit badges already and is definitely a go-getter. Yah, so here's somethin' for you to try. Pick one of those badges your son has earned. Somethin' with a practical application is easiest, like First Aid. Take a badge he has earned relatively recently, last three or four months or so. Give him a scenario or ask him to perform a task for that MB. Compound fracture of the ankle, with resultant shock might be a good one, if your son is a real go-getter. Or puttin' together and running a safe canoe trip on his own for a lad with First Class and Canoeing MB. Is he/would he be successful with no adult help? Nobody giving him hints or prompting him? That's what a badge is supposed to mean and da only reason one should be awarded. There's nothing at all wrong with a lad advancing quickly. It's to be encouraged, so long as the boy is also taking full advantage of the other 7 methods of scouting in the same measure. But more often than not, rapid advancement becomes about the patch and not about really gettin' good at the skill, and that just cheapens the experience for everybody. Me, I always get a bit skeptical when multiple lads are advancing right at the bare minimum timelines. That's almost always an "advancement mill" that cheats good kids of a full scouting experience. I think that hurts go-getter boys the most, eh? Those kids in particular should be challenged, and should be doin' more than the bare minimum. My preference is da same as John-in-KC's and Vicki's, eh? I think it's nicer in terms of Adult Association to hold BORs flexibly in an on-demand sort of way. Though I have to admit that the units that do things that way often fail to hold non-advancement BORs, which is a real loss. The units that do the scheduled once a month sort of things more often schedule everybody on some sort of rotation, so in that way they do a better job. Da quarterly BOR thing usually happens when a troop only holds BORs immediately prior to a Court of Honor, so it tends to be a bit more da advancement-milling thing, or a way of managing a large number of kids in a focused way. Like da French Tribunals, they're almost trying and sentencing kids in batches . Makes things easier on the adults, too, in a bigger troop. As with lots of things in Scouting, there's no one right way. But we all have our preferences. Most of us, especially da old timers, don't care for the quarterly BOR thing in particular. Beavah

Yah, seems like we're seein' more and more of this recently. Byproduct of the down economy these days. Lot of folks hurtin', and a trailer that's sittin' idle most of the time looks tempting. Beavah

Your story is why I do not get involved in Scouting with my Scout's troop....it's totally GOBN "Good Old Boys Network" and since I was never a Scout, they have made it clear that I have nothing to contribute that they want (except dues of course) One of da interesting things yeh see if you stay around Scouting long enough is that generally, successful scout troops rely on a strong leader (usually the SM) who develops a lot of experience, and a group of supporters (MCs, ASMs) who share in that vision. They enjoy each other's company, which is why they stay around and work so hard. And with a lot of time in, they develop quite a bit of experience. That's different from Cub packs, where leadership turns over a lot faster and tends to be a lot more ad-hoc and less experienced. Thank goodness it is, because otherwise the stuff we do in Boy Scouting and Venturing would be nowhere near as safe as it is. Those experienced leaders are critical. In fact, when they eventually move on, or die with their boots on, often troops fold. Leastways, they always shrink dramatically and usually develop some safety and youth behavior issues until a new group develops some experience. All that makes it hard for a new parent comin' from Cubs, eh? They want to be involved, but now there's extra training expected, higher standards of participation (medically as well as experientially), and da notion that yeh work with other adults on behalf of the program, rather than focusing on being Akela for your own son. My experience is that sometimes da old guard does get a bit too cliquish or impatient with the more inexperienced new folks, but that they really aren't that unfriendly to those who just pitch in and help out in ways that are respectful of what's goin' on. No matter what organization you're in, if yeh come in during your first year telling everybody what they're doing wrong you're goin' to get the cold shoulder and rolled eyes. I always tell parents that yeh have to spend enough time learning all the things that are right about the troop yeh join. Once you have a full appreciation of all the things they do well - of the generosity of those pompous good ol' boys, of the positive outcomes for teenagers of that chaotic youth-led stuff - then yeh know enough to improve some things as well. And you'll have friends and allies in doin' it. And yah, sure, some things yeh won't ever be able to change. When yeh work with people, yeh have to accept the whole person, the foibles along with da fantastic. Mrs. Beavah reminds me of that every day. So da imperfections and foibles are just spice that flavor the good things, like salt or da occasional bitter herb. Beavah

The ACP&P Manual says a BOR should be held after all the requirements have been met. But it also says "The review should be held at a convenient time and location." Yah, I reckon since da ACP&P is written for adults, that means at a convenient time and location for those adults, eh? It's probably a bit of a stretch to turn that into at the boy's convenience. Yah, markrvp, I'm sorta wondering here. If the troop conducts quarterly BORs, how is it that three lads are coming up for timely review after exactly 4 months? I'd think on quarterly BORs, they'd be every three months. Would work out perfectly for Life and Eagle, and only be a bit off for Star. Honestly, mate, I don't see yeh getting anywhere with this. Yeh can't sell other people's time, eh?. Looks even worse when you're trying to force them to do it on your/your son's behalf. If this is somethin' to change in your troop, it's something the SM should address with the CC and AC in a more general way. If you're lookin' for the rapid advancement thing, yeh might want to find a different unit, though to be honest your unit is pretty "up there" on the rapid advancement scale compared to most, given their push for Eagle by age 14. Beavah

For me...when it calls for wet...I get. Yah, that's a hoot! When yeh do some international scouting, yeh find all kinds of funny things. I love gettin' questions about why all the cars in da U.S. seem to explode a lot (from folks overseas watching our movies). Now yeh might live somewhere that doesn't get many storms, so to you it looks like we have exploding cars. But for most of the U.S., electrical storms are just an ordinary camping trip in the summer months. Yeh stay alert, yeh choose sites intelligently, and then yeh just have fun. If you're missing out on all that great summer camping, camping in the rain, the joy of watchin' a thunderstorm pass by... you're missing an awful lot of great Scouting. Now what I really don't get is how da Californians can go campin' with all those Earthquakes and mudslides. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... My question is "What's the rush?" Is this a lad who is in deadline-neverland, with his 18th birthday fast approaching so that he'll lose a shot at Eagle if he doesn't make Star on the exact date? Well, then, I think yeh flex for the boy. Don't sweat the details. Have the BOR, submit da paperwork on the morrow. For everything else, I think the better lesson for the boy is that the world doesn't revolve around him. His BOR can wait until the next week, or the next month. Having 3 adults spend time with you to help you in your program is a favor to the boy. It's not something that's owed to him. Adults don't owe him their volunteer time. They provide it, and all of Scouting, as a gift. A lad who is really deserving of Star would recognize that a Scout is Courteous, and say "of course I understand, Mr. AC. I'll be happy to wait until the next round if that works better for you. Or if you think the members would be available at another time outside of the meeting schedule before then, I would make myself available if it would help." A lad who demands the prompt time and attention of others I reckon is a spoiled fellow, not a Star Scout. Now, all that having been said, I reckon most of us would agree that a three month delay is a bit long. There are some troops and families where that kind of schedule works well for a variety of reasons. I'm just not fond of it myself. Like most of da folks here, I prefer BOR's to be scheduled more or less according to the needs of the kids. But if quarterly is da norm in your troop, then that's what yeh signed up for, eh? And asking for special consideration is just that - asking for special consideration, and more of someone else's time. It's a favor, not a requirement. As to who schedules a BOR, that just depends on da troop. No one right way of doin' it. Given that doin' 'em quarterly is likely goin' to be a big production that demands a lot of adult horsepower to be present, voting on 'em as part of the committee calendaring isn't a bad notion. It at least gets people on record as having committed to be there to support the effort. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I also believe that he needs to apologize to the entire troop (and to the boys he verbally assaulted), but not until such time as the boys let me know that they are ready to hear an apology. Yah, if I may suggest... adults do that sort of thing poorly. While in some ways sauce for da goose should be sauce for the gander (we often do make boys apologize to the group), I think yeh might get better results and a better reaction if yeh supervised the man apologizing to individual lads or small groups. Just a gut sense. He should, however, apologize to the committee. I am not sure how long banishment should continue. Should there be a time limit? Some precipitating event (such as an apology)? YP trianing? Here I think yeh have to leave it open. I definitely wouldn't put a time limit of any kind on it, though I'd leave the possibility of a relaxation "down the road" open. If the man comes clean in all the right ways, then after a few months I think yeh ease off slowly, beginning with using him as a helper for setup and that kind of thing - stuff that doesn't have contact with the boys. If that seems OK, with none of the anger issues, and he does YP, then yeh slowly test the waters at meetings. But yeh definitely want to leave the initial "banishment" in place long enough that the boys settle down and the other parents relax. Beavah If the fellow makes excuses, doesn't come clean, or isn't pretty near perfect

Yah, in da parent thread, packsaddle says Sometimes [parents] have useful information such as school event dates that the rest of the committee are unaware of. I confess I sat there baffled for a moment wonderin' why in the world a troop committee was gettin' into calendaring when the boys should be doin' that. Of course packsaddle might be talkin' about a pack committee. Got me to thinkin' about what role different committees play, eh? What actual functions do they perform? Not what they claim, mind. Everyone claims to be youth run, but if the committee is doin' the event scheduling, then not so much . So on a month to month basis, what does your committee actually spend its time on? Let's talk about troop and crew committees (the youth run side of the world). And as a favor, let's say from the start that if yeh post, it's OK for others to challenge your way of doing things and critique it. Part of da goal is to see what others are doing, and to give feedback to push us to think differently or do better. So everybody agrees up front to take feedback and critique with good grace. Beavah

Yah, billandt, everyone's been steering you right. The Chartered Organization is the one on the hook liability-wise for the behavior of a leader, so they (and only they) have hire/fire authority. But kudos to your committee and yourself for bringing an important issue to their attention. Now, there are a few ways to proceed here, dependin' on what's what, so let me list out some options. I think the proper way to go from what you describe is that you and the CC meet with the Den Leader and say "thank you for your service, but it is no longer required." Then yeh meet with the parents of the den and let them know you have appointed a new den leader. Yeh take the new Den Leader's application to the COR or IH for a signature (same as always). In other words, you don't need the BSA's permission to make a change, eh? The paperwork just notifies the BSA of a change that you have already made. The IH or COR signoff and the filing of the paperwork with the council look to me like they're formalities in this case. By the time an entire committee has voted to remove a fellow it's a done deal. So yeh just treat it that way. You take action, and then follow up with paperwork whenever you can. Nobody from the council office is goin' to come out to a den meeting and order you to obey the old den leader . If the fellow makes a scene, yeh just leave or call the cops, whatever is appropriate. As far as finishing the paperwork goes... In some units, the COR doesn't really function as a COR, eh? He or she got filled in as a "warm body" because someone was needed in the position for the unit to charter in the first place. They don't really understand their role and how important it is. Now, some training would help, but that's a long-term solution and you need a short term one. Da short term one is to do what WestCoastScouter suggested, and have you and the CC go to the IH (Institutional Head/Executive Officer) of the Chartered Organization. He or she can act unilaterally to remove the person (AND to replace the COR, if need be). Now, there's also a man or woman who is called a "Unit Commissioner" (or if you don't have one of those, a "District Commissioner"). They're council representatives assigned to your pack to help you navigate stuff like this. Now, not all packs have good ones, but you might ask who yours is or if you can talk to the District Commissioner. They can help you navigate this stuff and meet with the IH and whatnot. It's free! There's yet another option, depending on da nature of the violations. If there's something serious that involves youth protection issues, yeh should notify the council Scout Executive (da CEO of the local council). Not the office workers, the boss. He would then work with the chartered organization to investigate and possibly remove the person from scouting. Beavah

Yah, what Calico said. Da Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. I mean, the YP stuff was made to serve scouts and scouters, not the other way around. Yeh do what's right to help and keep the kid safe, and to demonstrate to him what a genuinely kind and caring adult should do. Beavah

Committee meetings, with full committee, are OPEN In some units, eh? But not all. Just depends on da unit and the CO. Often da closer the unit is tied to the CO, the greater a hand the CO takes in things (as it should) and the less "open" a committee is. Over da years my perspective on this has changed. Maybe that's because we see more helicopter parents these days, maybe because a part of my life in Scoutin' is refereeing adult squabbles. I used to be an open-committee fellow, but I think on par it's a net negative. What yeh want in a committee is a bunch of folks who are committed to the program, not (just) their individual kid. Yeh also want them to share a common vision of what that program should be accomplishing and how they go about things. Finally, like any good board of directors yeh want folks on da committee who bring some personal expertise in some area to contribute - somethin' that the group needs. For all those reasons, it's best to follow the BSA procedure to carefully consider and select individuals to serve on the committee. After you've got a group that's really committed to da long-term health of the program with a common vision and some real expertise, yeh don't want 'em to get bogged down in da gripe of the month from a parent trying to end-run the SM. So yeh have to restrict people's ability to speak/comment at committee meetings as visitors. Thing is, a lot of people don't take to that well, or don't comply, and a lot of CC's (apparently like the one in question) don't like dealin' with that kind of conflict. Finally, open committees tend to contribute to da cub-scoutification of boy scouting. Yeh put a bunch of parents comin' out of cub scouts all together just like a cub committee, and sure as shootin' they'll move things toward being adult-run and organized. There's just not that much stuff to do in a boy-run unit, eh? In a small unit of folks who share a common vision, an open committee will work just fine. Leastways until yeh get an influx of a bunch of people who don't share the vision. In a large unit, an open committee is unwieldy and almost always pushes things toward being adult run. Can they work? Yah, sure, if yeh have a really strong SM and core group of folks who are constantly puttin' the mission in front of people (and have the gumption to clip da wings of the folks who don't buy into the vision). Bando's report of pleasant 30-person committee meetings is more an exception than a rule eh? But such strong folks don't last. Da EagleDads of da world move on. As Bando mentioned, it wasn't always the case. Here we have a parent who doesn't like the vision of his troop's committee, and wants to stir things up. Now, of course we're all thinkin' that he's right and a lad should move at his own pace rather than being in lockstep... perhaps until we realize that "lockstep" in this case is apparently a mad dash to Eagle before high school and markrvp wants his son to go faster. I'd say "relax", eh? Scouting is a great thing if the adults don't get in the way. Take a step back and let your son just enjoy it. Beavah

Oh, enough with the comments about "despots" and finding a new troop and such! What markrvp describes is pretty common policy across units and councils nationwide. I know a fair number of councils that won't register MBCs for more than 5 or 7 MBs. I disagree with it, but it's their prerogative. I'd venture to say that most troops at least frown on parents as MBCs for their own sons, and quite a few don't allow it if there's an available alternative. Remember, it's da SM who approves the lad to take the badge and assigns the counselor, eh? So it's definitely an OK policy to implement in that way. Now in this case, if markrvp is really da only or the best counselor for those two things in his (presumably small) town, then of course his boy should take the badge from him, and I reckon he'll be like many parents and be stricter than usual. But we've all seen some go da other way, eh? Where the parent wasn't really an expert in the badge, and was more lenient than usual. It's best to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and encourage the lads to get the full benefit of adult association with (non-parent) counselors as much as possible. None of that even comes close to "despots" and dumping the troop. Beavah

Yah, Roadkill Patrol, here's the thing. And forgive me if I'm being a bit pedantic. There's a difference between recurring (operational) funds and one-time (capital) funds. A good, financially prudent organization will never fund recurring operational costs (like dues, recharter, etc.) from one-time monies like an accumulated fund balance. That would be really bad stewardship. It's the sort of thing that leads to financial catastrophe down the road. A lot of folks don't understand the difference between the two kinds of monies, and so mistakenly believe that a NFP is "hoarding" money or such. Nope. They're just doing their duty. You don't mention how big your pack is, or what its annual budget is like. Generally speakin', not every family is very good about timely payment, and lots of activities require advance payments. Having a healthy general fund balance allows a unit to maintain a positive cash position when it has to make a bunch of deposits and activity fee payments and such before all the payments come in, or as TwoCubDad says it saves yeh from a weak fundraiser. $9K is slightly high for a cub pack, but then I don't know how big da pack is or what kinds of pack activities are being run. Yeh should definitely have a fund balance equal to at least half of the annual budget. Lots of other explanations are possible, too, eh? Includin' donor restrictions on a past donation. Regardless of the reason(s) or lack thereof, I'm not sure why you'd feel that it's OK for you to demand a subsidy for your family out of the pack's fund balance. That's what yeh seem to be asking for. They have money, so they should give it to me rather than making me pay for by son's BSA dues increase. Socialized wealth redistribution, eh? Da pack is a NFP entity, not a for-profit company that you own stock in. Yeh shouldn't expect that you are owed a piece of the fund balance (aka "dividend") no matter how big it is. Yeh aren't being cheated, you even admit that you're gettin' what you pay for. So no point in gettin' riled up. If yeh want to have input on the budgeting and finances, volunteer for the committee, spend a year or two gettin' to know how things work, and then make some suggestions. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, there's no requirement that the committee meetings be open, unless the CO imposes one. I'm not hugely fond of "wide open" committee meetings, because unless yeh have a strong CC they tend to become gripe sessions for individual parent complaints about this, that, or the other thing. Generally speakin', the SM should be invited, and should represent the views of the youth and adult leaders. Generally speakin', there are a few parents on the committee who represent that perspective. Beyond that, being open doesn't get yeh too much. It's fine being open in a small troop with parents that all share in the vision; it can be a nightmare in a large troop with parents who have different notions of how they want things to run. Sometimes, like when considering a disciplinary action for a scout or a parent or an adult leader, or when allocating camperships or such, it is proper for the meeting to be firmly closed to protect da confidentiality and privacy of the persons involved. Beavah

Good points by Thomas54. I wouldn't worry in the least about campin' out in da situation you describe. Just be attentive to the worries of other parents and to the quality of the gear. Also remember that the kids will take their cues off of you, eh? So if the parents are all nervous/scared the kids will be. If the parents are calm and having fun, the kids will be. Keep it fun for the kids. One thing I will mention is that the new gizmos are really cool. Saw a fellow with an iPhone on a recent camporee who could pull up da current radar picture for the area. (There's an app for that ). Much better than a weather radio if yeh have a signal. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As far as the comment that Advancement is the unit's reponsbility why then is advancement tied to both District and Council Centennial status? Yah, that's da point, eh? It's a terrible idea. Leads to the kind of silliness that Eagle92 describes. Just like tyin' professional evaluations to numbers of youth led to lots of falsified youth registrations in council after council. Settin' poor goals can do a lot of harm. Da easiest way to meet da rank goal is to offer merit badges and rank classes at meetings, and I don't reckon that's what we want. a boy progressing through the ranks tends to stay in scouting. Nah. That's a correlation-is-not-causation fallacy. A boy who is interested in scouting and stays active tends to progress through the ranks. If its a numbers game, of fewer older boys in the troop, then it points to a need to beef up recruiting. Nah, yeh missed jblake's point. His point wasn't a fall off in older lads (which would be retention not recruiting in any event). It was just that havin' such a goal makes yeh want to do two things. Either delay t-2-1 advancement so that yeh get da one rank a year credit, or push units toward a 14-Eagle-and-out. If it's a lack of interesting program or the majority of the boys are cross committed, that becomes apparent as well. How? I've never gotten that info out of an advancement report, and I've been readin' 'em for a lot of years. This also gives District and COuncil Leadership to look over the health of the units program. Yah, nolesrule and I were talkin' about that, eh? My experience has been that it's really easy to see a unit that is doin' the advancement mill thing (weak program). With your goal, though, that would be a good unit, eh? It would be a unit that was helping you reach your council goal. It's really hard to tell on the other end. I can point to a mess of boys and units that don't push advancement but are part of active, outstanding programs. So it seems like such a goal would laud those with weak programs and pester those that might have stronger programs. Yah, yah, sure, a unit that's approachin' its deathbed might also show weak advancement, but at that point there are soooo many other indicators. Low numbers of registered adults, falling youth numbers, transfers out, etc. Beavah

We treat Scouting solely as a means to an end. Not the reverse. Scouting's priorities are not necessarily our priorities... we have to tolerate the negatives to gain the positives. Yah, fair enough. I reckon we parents do that with all da programs our kids engage in. And with all the friends they choose to have too, eh? And I reckon our kids tolerate da negatives of us as parents to gain the positives too! Seems to me that you were a registered leader in your son's troop. That's a bit of a different level than just a parent pickin' a program. As leaders, we sorta have an obligation to lead and teach in a way that's consonant with our CO and/or da BSA (dependin' on our role). Isn't it? Not tryin' to be a pain in the kiester, BTW. Just being friendly and conversational. Kick the young fellow's behind if he should be doin' better in school, by all means. Beavah

Percentages aside, for a commissioner, the advancement reports are just a tool in our box to help us keep an eye on unit health (lack of advancement can be a sign of a troubled unit) LOL. I usually read da things. Generally speakin', I find 'em more reliable as a way of identifying those who are using advancement poorly (rapid/badge mill type advancement). I'm not sure I could reliably ID a "low advancement" threshold that was a good predictor of a troubled unit. Hard to say. Anyway, there are a lot better predictors of troubled units, and if yeh need da computer to tell you where your troubled units are then I reckon yeh have other problems. Beavah

I thought it was the duty of scouters to support and respect the decisions of others who volunteer their time and efforts to running the BSA program and not critique their performamce based on a few lines in an obscure internet forum. Yah, I reckon a lot of us volunteer our time and efforts to create, revise, and "run" the BSA program materials and support, eh? I'm not at all sure we deserve either support or respect. Quite the contrary. I think it's our duty to provide support to scouters, and to respect our chartered partners and their volunteers. But then I've said before that I'm a sort of old fashioned fellow. An advancement percentage is a poor goal for a council to have, because they don't have any control over it. So if they're gettin' all serious about it, then a bit of mockery is in order. It's a waste of good folks time that should be called out. If we care about kids and program, we shouldn't waste good people's time. Calico's got da right of it. I think a good council focuses on how it can best provide resources and support to help the unit leaders. An advancement percentage goal is a poor goal, IMO, because the easiest way to achieve it is in da ways I and jblake described, eh? We humans always take the most efficient route to our goals. If yeh really want to support and improve good program, yeh need a better goal. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

"Engineer61, I'm curious how yeh reconcile that with the Scout Oath and Law?" I don't. Because the Oath and Law are not the overriding laws of my family. I am. Yah, hmmmm. Yeh have an oddly solipsistic view of family, there. Gotta wonder what Mrs. Engineer61 would have to say about that. But if you're being honest, then I'm left wonderin' why do yeh want your kids to be in Boy Scouting, where we teach a different set of values than those held by your family? That's bound to cause some tension, eh? Us teachin' duty to God as Priority 1, and duty to country as Priority 2, and helping other people at all times as Priority 3; of including Trustworthy and Loyal as number 1 and 2 in da Scout Law, and all those others that modify and inform our view of Obedient. Are yeh sure we're really da right program for your needs? For Scoutin', school and other types of Advancement are never Priority One. They're just methods that we use along da way to achieve our real Aims. Beavah

All of the walgreens and CVS phamacys in our area have minute clinics that will do camp physicals for $35 Yah, only on kids and not on adults, eh? I think what HikerLou is talkin' about are the adult medicals and physicals. My experience over da years is that adults are far more worried about other adults they know finding out about their medical condition(s), prescriptions, etc. Discovered more than a few over the years that lied outright (by commission or omission). Viagra and birth control are Rx medications listed on a health form, eh? I think that's gettin' worse because of economics. Know lots of adults who will forego their physical in order to provide junior with sports or scouts or whatnot. I think it's also become worse since we started up da no-fat-people rule. Yah, for sure, goin' on a trip like this da trip leader should know about the basic medical condition and health of the participants. I reckon it's just fine to take the hard line on medicals. I would in most cases. Problem is just that yeh have to be willing to accept the outcome HikerLou describes, eh? They'll just do it off da reservation. Folks don't need the BSA to go camping with kids, but we need folks who go camping with kids in order to have a BSA. When we're talkin' about adults, we're not really as responsible for 'em, eh? If we know the folks well, there are probably ways of gettin' the information we need talkin' to 'em on the side and respectin' their privacy or financial circumstances. A half-way point that gets a trip leader enough information to be able to make a decision so that we're not dealing with a helicopter evac on an official scout trip, but not so line-in-the-sand strict that we're dealing with a helicopter evac on a non-scout trip. What was missing here was a respectful, private conversation about why da parents were havin' a hard time complying with the medicals, and some gentle, friendly support or accommodation. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so if a council is behind on its "goal", what exactly is it goin' to do? Other than annoying the unit leaders, as Eamonn suggests? Schedule a few extra Merit Badge Mill days? Promote a T-2-1-in-a-weekend event? Require a troop to have patrols no bigger than 4 so that there are more Patrol Leaders earnin' time-in-POR? Start giving out money for each rank a lad makes? Inquiring minds want to know! Beavah

I serve on the District and Council Advancement Committee. One of the focuses of late is to look at every unit and keep track of their "Percentage of Advancement". This is because each Scout advancing a rank a year is a stated Council Goal. This was a quote from OGE in another thread. I can't help but think that this is a poor goal for a council. A goal should be somethin' that a council can reasonably accomplish, eh? Good council goals might be improving the user satisfaction with summer camp, or building endowment to a certain level, or providin' a high level of service to units, or supporting multiple high adventure opportunities for scouts and units. Advancement is a unit-level thing, eh? Why does that belong as a council goal? Beavah

I would have nothing to do with that trip. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Yah, OK perdidochas, I was with yeh for most of this. I think it's prudent for a trip leader to have medical forms and signoffs for this sort of trip, eh? But why does everybody seem like they can only make a point by invoking some lawsuit silliness? Da reason to have medical information on hand is so that we can provide appropriate support to youth and adults, and generally Be Prepared, eh? That's a good point. A fine point on its own. A point that I think we all can understand and appreciate. Yeh don't need to make up BS about lawsuits. That just makes yeh look either dumb or dishonest. Beavah

Yah, OK, I can't really comment on da educational issues peri raises, though on da surface they seem pretty reasonable to me, and I defer to his expertise. I'm curious about this statement, though: As I'd already stated, if the activity is voluntary or avoidable...it's school first...period. Engineer61, I'm curious how yeh reconcile that with the Scout Oath and Law? Beavah