Beavah

Yah, in da previous thread Eagle732 commented Most of the time it seems like the new boy gets the PL job. A few other folks have been seeing this in their units it seems. So this is a thread for suggestions on how to address the "give it to the younger kid, make him do the work" thing with Patrol Leaders. What I'd suggest is that yeh first look to see what da PL job is like in the troop. Is it really a leadership role with that kind of recognition? Or is it more of a task-management/busywork role that handles grunt tasks like duty rosters and gear organization and such? I think when the PL job is real leadership and recognized as that, the older boys step up. They want that recognition and "power." But not if da adults have the power and the PL is only a grunt worker. In that case, the older fellows make the younger guy do it, and then they set up their own sorta counter-cultural leadership clique of cool guys who sit back. Takes some effort to break that, eh? Yeh have to get da adults to change the way they look at things, and be willing to up the challenge of troop outings so that yeh really need those older boys to lead, and they feel the need. Scary for adults. I think yeh also need to think a bit about how yeh work with da PLC. Yeh want da PLC to be the older "cool" crowd, eh? That means yeh also have to think about some ways in which they get special treatment and yeh treat 'em like fellow adults. Stayin' up later 'round the campfire while the others (including non-PLC older scouts) go to bed, pizza at meetings, an occasional night on the town maybe checkin' out a new activity or outdoor movie. Genuinely challenging and fun TLT experiences should be a part of this, too, eh? "We're the guys who do the hard stuff" is what yeh want to build in their minds. And guys that do the hard stuff lead others. That's my take. Let's hear some other ideas! Beavah

Yah, da list of positions in da books is a list of possible positions, eh? Each troop can and should decide what positions it's goin' to have. That's going to depend on size and a bunch of other factors. The rule is simple, though. Yeh only have positions where there's a real, responsible, growth-inducing job to be done. I sometimes tell folks that it's only a real position of responsibility if kids in the troop really feel the impact if the job isn't being done. That's what responsibility means, eh? If the person in a POR fails to be responsible for a month, it should hurt da program. If the lad can go AWOL for a month and no one notices, or it's naught but a minor inconvenience, then yeh should eliminate the position. Most important job of the lot is Patrol Leader. If your older scouts are fobbing that off on younger boys yeh have a troop culture problem yeh need to fix. Pronto! But that sounds like a different thread... Beavah

Yah, is there any question at all about da facts of the case, or is this just a question of law? If there's questions about da facts (the things juries usually determine), then you're in a stew. While perhaps a good lesson of citizenship, I don't think yeh want to expose kids to the backwash that might come from playin' jury. Angry parents, upset friends... If it's just a question of law... what the boys want to establish as norms and expectations for the troop goin' forward, then I think yeh can manage that. Have someone present what happened (adult or youth). Have the youth in question talk about what he did and especially why he chose to do it. Let the PLC ask questions. Then have the boy leave the room and let the kids deliberate on what their response should be. I would seed the thing by giving the SPL a few options ahead of time that yeh think are in da reasonable range. And I'd stay around but be pretty quiet as an adult. Don't have a lot of other adults around, though. Honestly, though, I'm sorta with Eagle92, eh? Are yeh sure that this isn't somethin' that should just be handled by the boy's PL? or da SPL? Especially since it's a "safety issue" rather than a community issue like theft. Safety stuff we ordinarily don't committee-ify. The fellows who know about safety and who are responsible for it just decide. Beavah

Yah, GSUSA is a grand example of gender bias in the adult leadership ranks, eh? And look where it's gotten 'em. Almost zero retention of post-adolescent girls. I confess that I've only seen a few of da older women/mom types make good boy scouting leaders. They weren't raised in a coed world as kids, so they tend to be a bit "off" in terms of tone. But the younger women leaders that yeh see around now are much better, having come of age in a more balanced world. Know many female BSA leaders who are outstanding. While I respect da religious CO's that choose not to use 'em, the rest of the troops are really missing out on a good thing if they stick with all-male leaders. Beavah

Yah, I guess I get to play BobWhite (flighty birds, those...) Courts of honor may be chaired by the head of the troop committee or the troop committee member responsible for advancement. The planning of the program also should be handled by these individuals, along with other members of their committees. Scoutmaster's Handbook For ECOH, there's also this: The scout and his family should be involved in planning the ceremony and selecting those who will make the presentation of the award. So da court of honor is the troop's, to be planned by the troop committee... but the Eagle and his family should be involved, eh? I reckon that's a nice balance. Where yeh strike da balance just depends, eh? If yeh want the ceremony to be most meaningful to the Eagle Scout, make it small and intimate and fun and light and outdoors, the way scoutmom2's Eagle requested, and leave da letters behind. If yeh are focused on the Eagle's family and (adult) guests who were an important part of the lad growing up, then a more formal graduation / wedding type ceremony is appropriate, as NJCubScouter and others suggested. If yeh want to have da biggest impact on the younger scouts who are still on the trail, then I reckon it's something in between, or perhaps just different. I'll be honest that I haven't seen ECOH's that really had that focus. If yeh want a part of da emphasis to be on the sponsor, then yeh have the ECOH in the church/school/vets hall with invites to the sponsoring community. Seen a few of those that were even a part of a regular church service, with a reception afterward. I think scoutmom2's son and NJCubScouter are right, eh? Da ceremony just depends on which group the troop is focused on. My recommendation to folks is always that if the focus doesn't meet everyone's needs, do two things. If yeh have a pomp-and-circumstances bit, also offer a special Eagle's Friends campout focused on the boy. If yeh have an Eagle-focused simple and fun outdoor ceremony, have a reception or open house for da adult family members afterward. Beavah

Yah, congrats to your son, scoutmom2! First, be sure yeh talk to your troop and its boy leaders, eh? This is their ceremony. Your son is only da guest of honor. If all the planning and work in your troop has fallen on parents and parents/adults do what they want, give the troop a gift and put the responsibility and ownership back where it belongs. His youth leader friends are goin' to be a lot better than you at doing the fun and light ceremony he is looking for. And yeh can bet that most boys feel the same as your son! I wouldn't bother with Mark's book. All da ceremonies he compiled in that which I remember are way too full of adult pomp and circumstance. And never, ever read those canned politician letters. B - O - R - I - N - G I'll be honest over the years that the best Eagle award ceremonies I've seen were as far away from da typical Wedding Banquet thing as possible. Outdoors, informal, fun. Roasts are good, but yeh need an MC to keep 'em short and sweet. The ones kids seem to appreciate the most are small and intimate - just their good outdoor buddies, perhaps on their own campout. If it doesn't work for great-grandma or all the adults who need pomp, have a second gathering for them at an open house or reception afterward. I've never seen a kid really remember anything from a Wedding Banquet Eagle-Charge-and-Bluster ceremony, except perhaps da few minutes of slides of his scoutin' activities. But they'll talk about the more intimate and personal receivin' the award outdoors with friends for rest of their life. Beavah

Didn't we go to the moon using equipment that barely met the minimum? Yeh must be jokin'. We went to the moon because a whole lot of well-educated engineers and workers who went way, way, way beyond the minimum in their own lives and in their service made commitments to each other and to their nation to get us there. There's a reason that even 40 years late we still call the hardest of endeavors "rocket science." Beavah

However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position. Yah, if ever there was a statement put out by an office rat in Irving that demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Scouting and the entire rest of the scouting program literature, this one was it. Da SPL and PLs are elected by the boys. They should be removed by the boys, through another election. Da other PORs are appointed by the SPL and supervised by the ASPL. They should be removed by those boys. Nowhere in the BSA program do the "unit leaders ensure" a boy is fulfilling a POR. Nowhere in the BSA program do unit leaders remove boys because they haven't (yet) learned the skill(s) or responsibility of a requirement. Read the Scoutmaster's Handbook, the Troop Committee Guidebook, the SPL and PL Handbooks, the Rules & Regulations... our entire body of program literature. This website statement by da folks in the Boy Scouting advancement office is contrary to all of it. BrentAllen is right. In BSA Scouting, we work with kids as hard and as long as it takes for 'em to learn and earn the requirement, whether it's complete a swim test or serve in a position of responsibility. But we don't sign off until the boy has succeeded. Anything else just isn't Scouting. Beavah

Should prospective scoutmasters be told about such issues? Or should they find out on their own? Hi inthewoods, welcome to da Forums! I think yeh know the answer to this, eh? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think a scoutmaster deserves to know so that he or she can prepare to provide the right kind of support for all the boys. Might make a difference in the Troop Guide assignment (assigning a second TG, even), which affects other boys' scouting and advancement and such. I've never seen a scoutmaster who was alerted to such an issue hold any special prejudice against a lad. If it turns out that the boy is just fine now that he's away from cub scouts and cub parents, that will be obvious to any boy scout adult. But if da issues continue in Boy Scouting, it's good to have a plan in advance. Beavah

Yah, same-age Patrol Leader as patrol members I take it? Relatively young fellows? I reckon there's a reason for Troop Guides. Since yeh mention PLs (plural) are havin' this problem, I think yeh need to think about what you're doin' for Troop Leader Training, and perhaps what you're doin' for program planning. Da right answer to "when to offer help" is "before there's a problem." Give 'em the skills they need by doin' a lot of TLT and PL coaching before they need it. Now that yeh see what the problems are, you've got some new goals for the next PL training you run! I'd also take a look at your program planning. Younger fellows do need to run and have a lot of unstructured play and fun. Sometimes it's just fine to let 'em do that. Then a wise adult can show a PL how to use some new knots to have even more fun, eh? If they're climbing trees, help 'em get into a bigger tree by throwin' a rope, tying some knots. Swimming? How 'bout a rope swing with those knots? Racing? How 'bout tyin' legs or arms together in various combinations, or settin' up lines to crawl under or hop over? That's how scoutin' is supposed to work. I can't think of anything more awful and boring than stopping the play in order to run a knots class. No youth leader is goin' to pull that off well. When we talk about "getting down to business", we adults have to remember that games and play are their business. Beavah

What makes your judgement on the requirements better than the BSAs? Yah, I can answer that one, eh? Da Owl knows the boy personally, and da BSA doesn't. Besides, when we're talkin' about the BSA's "judgment", it's worth rememberin' that the stuff is mostly assembled by some office folks in Irving who aren't working with kids, advised by some big committees of folks of various backgrounds most of whom haven't worked with kids in quite a while, and copy edited by a company that doesn't have much of a scoutin' connection at all. They're all good folks, mind, but they aren't exercising any "judgment" of da sort you're thinkin' of. They're just doin' their best to put out some decent materials that meet the corporation's needs and can be used by a whole mess of different programs around da nation and world. Can you base your decisions on the requirements as they are written by the BSA? I reckon he's tryin' to base his decisions on the Aims and Mission of da BSA, and da purpose of Advancement which is detailed in the Rules & Regulations which he agreed to. Which is what we all should do, eh? I believed I ended by saying this - if you can't advocate for the Scout, it's time to move on. I think he is tryin' to advocate for the scout, eh? The scout is a young fellow who has some lessons about responsibility and character that are as yet unlearned, and da Owl wants the boy to learn them. It's da toughest thing in the world when the parents don't share that goal. Whether it's da "winning is what's important" parents who ignore sportsmanship in da youth leagues, to "the Eagle badge is what's important" parents who don't buy into character, fitness, and citizenship in Scouting. uz2bnowl, these cases are just hard, eh? Some times you are goin' to lose 'em, especially when you are tryin' to change a troop's culture. I always advise that if yeh don't like the outcomes you're gettin' in terms of Eagle Scouts, the place you need to start is with First Class scouts. Then with Star. Then with Life. Since Eagle is the finale, not seein' what yeh want by way of character at Eagle means da problem is with all of your advancement, not just the last step. Best to roll up your sleeves and change how yeh do things earlier in the chain rather than try to hold da line at the very end. Beavah

I have to admit somethin'. I don't get troops where the time requirements come into play for advancement. Yah, yah, I know we put in da time requirements as a last-ditch stop against the parents and kids who want to get through the race to Eagle as quickly and easily as possible, and that every troop has to deal with a few of those. But honestly, I've just never seen a strong troop where boys were ever waitin' on time in position for ranks or merit badges. My favorite silly thing is the 3 outings / 7 "activities" requirement for First Class. How in the world a lad could ever really earn First Class with only 3 campouts to his credit is just beyond me. Even makin' allowances for urban Scoutreach units that don't get out much. Camping MB is another one of those. I just don't get counselors or units that regularly gift da badge to boys at the bare minimum number of days & nights. Yah, yah, sure a couple of boys will come to a troop from a family that does a lot of camping as a family, and where the boys start Boy Scouting with a whole lot of skills that most boys don't have. That's when the minimum time requirements should kick in, eh? And only then. To my mind, lookin' at da 4- to 6- month POR requirements at all is just bass-ackwards scouting. The point of serving in a position of responsibility is service and responsibility. For a man of character, those things are their own reward, and yeh do 'em for as long as you need to because that's what being responsible means. Most boys need quite a bit longer than da minimum time to learn and internalize the lessons of character and service that come from those positions, eh? To use advancement well as a method, yeh have to be focused on the boy's growth in skills and character and responsibility, eh? That takes as long as it takes - different amounts of times for each boy. Including different amounts of time in positions of responsibility. Only when yeh have an outstanding lad, a real natural leader with generous spirit whose family has already succeeded completely at instilling adult-like responsibility and character should the time limits ever come into play. So every discussion I see about da 6 month thing (or 5 months 10 days, can't we hold a BOR now??!) or other time requirements, I cringe a bit. Odds are that's a weak scouting unit that isn't really focused on da Aims. Beavah

Yah, I'm with da Lisabob and BrentAllen, eh? If yeh don't see a pride in scouting in your boys, yeh need to start by looking in the mirror. Odds are you're associatin' pride with stuff that you care about as adults, from ceremonies to adult drama, and as a result you're robbin' your kids of the chance to be genuinely proud of da things they really care about. Never seen a strong youth-led program where adults both listened to kids and set high expectations where the lads weren't proud of their troop. Yeh also shouldn't confuse pride with public shows, eh? Real pride as often as not is a private thing. Yeh can be deeply proud of somethin' without bragging about it in public or wearin' it on your sleeve. As to da mores of society at large, most of the rude folks I know aren't young people. They're older folks who are ornery, inconsiderate, and set in their ways. Yeh rarely hear young people makin' racist or sexist comments, but it's still part and parcel of da behavior of a lot of older folks. And close as I can tell da young folks have a much less shrill and partisan view of politics than a lot of us old timers. I reckon real scouting pride and real courtesy and values are doin' just fine with our scouts. It's us old folks who should be removin' the logs from our eyes rather than worryin' about da motes in theirs. Beavah

Yah, funny read there, KC Da article sure seems to indicate that the most likely response President Obama is considerin' is an increase of 30,000 troops plus an expanded HQ and trainin' mission of an additional 7,000, for a total increase of American combat forces of 37,000 troops. Not much of a cut and run. I have to admit that I have never seen any viable way to nation-build in Afghanistan. Da place isn't a country, it's a remote tribal no-mans-land with near zero real infrastructure and no history of effective self-governance. We could pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the place and not make a dent. I can't see us spendin' our money and blood to prop up a corrupt fool like Karzai. Every month we're on the ground doin' that we'll increase our number of enemies by 10% no matter how many we kill. So do we stage a coup and topple the fellow? And then what? Appoint a military governor? General Eikenberry is right to sound a strong warnin'. No good options in that godforsaken place, especially when da mission was bungled as badly as it was early on. Best option is to try to make a push with Pakistan to get most of the worst actors in the short term, but who knows with Pakistan? My hope is that each branch of government does its own job well - the President settin' strategy and the military determining tactics - and they don't start gettin' confused about who should do what. Presidents are genuinely lousy at military planning and operations, and generals are genuinely lousy at geopolitical strategy. B

Beavah, I don't think you correctly understand what I have written, or what CNYScouter has written. Could be. But I reckon from CNY's last post that what's really goin' on is that CNY isn't correctly understanding what his district/council is askin' for or how they really work. Yah, I certainly agree that da communication could be better. It can always be better, eh? There's all kinds of reasons for confusion. Scouters who don't get da memo, turnover in district or council volunteers, parents or boys aren't quite listenin', confusion between different levels of da organizations, etc. Sometimes, too, I think adults set up artificial deadlines to try to push kids along or protect their own time, but that there's really some flexibility behind the scenes, so to speak. If a district advancement committee is gettin' tired of being hit with last-minute stuff by ill prepared lads, they'll tend to generate some documents to try to push more responsibility and timeliness out on da troops. Doesn't mean that they are (or can) hold to those, but if at least some folks pay attention it means that their volunteer time becomes a lot more pleasant, and more kids actually make it. Puttin' things off to the last minute and then expectin' a lot of adults to panic and rush on your behalf ain't the most courteous thing a fellow applyin' for Eagle can do, eh? Tryin' to teach that a bit isn't awful. I've seen all kinds of district weirdness and poor communication in da Eagle process, but in the end I've never really seen 'em do what you're worried about. I think CNY's son's bit will get straightened out just fine, but it should be CNY's son, and not CNY, that's doin' the straightening, since he is the fellow that procrastinated. Beavah

You can stand by the Boy Scout Handbook or BSA Requirements all you want; at the end of the day they derive their authority as BSA program literature from ACP&P. It's the governing document. That would be incorrect. ACP&P is just program literature, same as da Boy Scout Requirements book and the Handbook, eh? They all derive whatever "authority" they have by virtue of being authorized print jobs from Irving. And in that scheme, da Boy Scout Requirements book is the official text on advancement requirements (because it has the shortest revision cycle). Da document from which "authority" is derived is the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America. But AMulls, I gotta wonder whether yeh think it's also too much to ask da poor, overworked boys to fill out an Eagle Scout Application, eh? That's not listed in da requirements either. Beavah

Assuming that we don't learn from CNY tomorrow that the five letters did appear before the deadline, are you saying his son should not make Eagle because of a "local requirement" that his council decided to add to the national requirements? Hiya NJCubScouter! As a CubScouter, yeh may not be aware that there is no requirement that a BOR has to be held before the lad's 18th birthday. Also no requirement that all da paperwork has to be in by the birthday either. It's completely routine and ordinary for Eagle paperwork and reference letters and Eagle Boards of Review to be conducted after a lad turns 18. So what you're worried about just ain't an issue. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Really, if someone out there can write a clear, unambiguous requirement that all boys can read and understand, a requirement that all boys would understand that they have to meet in order to gain approval, I'd really like to read it. Yah, I sorta like da Oath and Law myself, eh? Guess folks find that too "ambiguous". I expect anything that's really valid is not goin' to pass the unambiguous test, because as soon as yeh make it concrete it can be gamed. If yeh try to define virtue as "following the law" (which is less ambiguous, though I reckon there's still plenty of ambiguity in law), yeh get Enron or AIG or worse. If yeh try to define "active" yeh get all kinds of oddity. Still, I figure we can have some fun with this, eh? I reckon mine would be "the troop adults and scouts think of you as an active, respected Assistant Scoutmaster". Someone who has da skills, responsibility, character, and leadership ability to be responsible for others in remote and challenging activities, and be responsible for portion(s) of the program in-town. I don't mind da difference between units, eh? In one unit, that person could be an outstandin' mountain climber; in another, a fine car-camper. Different kids can be responsible for different portions of da program in-town, matched to their interests and abilities. Point is just that he's respected and trusted by peers and adults in the troop for his skills, responsibility, character, and leadership - enough to be trusted with other people's kids. What are yours? Beavah

What if we respected each other enough to know that if a unit puts out an Eagle Candidate we all know that the boy has done everything he is supposed to and has fulfilled the requirements and lives the oath and law. I reckon we do. Leastways, I've never seen a scouter anywhere give an Eagle a hard time. Da reaction to kids is just what we find in this thread with kenk's son, eh? Congratulations. These issues come up on da forums when people are askin' or wonderin' about what standards they should set within their troop to do right by kids. What makes for the best program, or how does someone improve their program. It's not about individual boys. So we give these fellow scouters advice to do what makes sense in terms of developing character, or to follow da requirements, or whatever. We're tryin' to help 'em help boys. Now, I have seen boys not respect Eagles whom they felt didn't measure up or got an easy pass from da adults or whatnot. Again, that's an internal issue for a troop, eh? But it's vitally important for teachin' character and how we use the advancement method. If good kids like CrossRamWedge's son see boys gettin' Eagle on technicalities rather than real skills and character, it devalues and undermines the entire advancement program in their eyes. Really does awful things to the program, or it does awful things socially to the scout who got da "easy bye" that the other boys don't accept. I've also talked with employers who no longer hire Eagle Scouts because of bad experiences with 'em. Da sense is that Eagles feel entitled and seem to expect others to do the work to make 'em succeed. They're not go-getters. Perhaps that's a result of da just-do-the-minimums approach to advancement, perhaps its just this couple of employers happened to have a bad run of kids. Still doesn't help da program or the other boys in it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

But wouldn't it be nice if everybody, in every district, were following the same rules? Nah. Too many different districts and councils out there, eh? Rural, urban, lots of volunteers, ones barely functional. We don't standardize da how to operate stuff in Scouting because all that would do is make it worse (and make people pissed off) everywhere. I honestly don't get all da adult angst over letters, eh? I've yet to see a scout who had the least trouble with it. They're all gettin' letters for college or da military or whatnot. It's routine and easy. Lawyerin' the difference between step 6 & step 7 is to my mind just da province of adults with too much time on our hands. If your area requests/requires letters, tell the lad to get the letters. He'll be just fine with it. Beavah

I look forward to the publication of the methodology concerning how one determines who is to be held to a higher standard then the published requirements. I don't. Da point when we can publish a nice, neat, simple set of rules or methodology for helpin' kids grow is the point when it can be programmed into a computer and automated online. We have adult association in Scoutin' for a reason, eh? It's because raisin' kids can't be automated. And if as a scout leader yeh don't know which one of your kids is strugglin' and which needs to be pushed or pulled to higher levels of achievement, then I reckon yeh shouldn't be a volunteer in this business. Scoutin' means knowing your boys, and helpin' 'em each grow in character, fitness, and citizenship. CrossRamWedge's son seems to have no trouble makin' the distinction between cases, eh? Seems like trained and experienced adults should do at least as well as a 16 year old. The stated requirement, BTW, is to live da Oath and Law in your everyday life, including Scouting. Doin' the minimum when that is less than your best doesn't fulfill da requirement, eh? Not in CRW's son's eyes, and not in da eyes of the community that feels Eagle Scout actually means something of value. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

OK, so just to be a touch contrarian and ornery... I think "homophobic" is a slur. It's used by one particular political group to try to smear those who feel that the choice to live a homosexual lifestyle is an immoral one. It's just another form of belittling and denegratin' people you disagree with. So in that way, kcs_hiker participated in what he is pretendin' to condemn. I also don't think that jokes about President Obama or Michael Jackson are necessarily inappropriate. Both of those fellows are public figures, and in da free world public figures are fair game for jokes. It's OK to joke about Senator McCain's age and forgetfulness even when it would be completely inappropriate to joke about the elderly more generally. It's OK to joke about Sarah Palin's intelligence, even if it's not OK to do that about women more generally. It's OK to joke about Senator Kennedy as a drunken Irishman, Governor Schwartzenegger as da Austrian Terminator, and President Obama as a black Hawaiian. And honestly, it's hard not to joke about Michael Jackson's race, whatever it was . Before yeh get too wound up, kcs_hiker, take a step back and take a reflective look at your own attitudes. I'm not excusin' your SM and ASM, they may well be cads. But then perhaps you're also steppin' out there on an unnecessarily extreme limb yourself. Probably better to tone down da us vs. them thing all around. Beavah

Yah, I think to do it right yeh train to the needs of the fellows you have. So my question, PeteM, is what's the biggest need for the current crop of troop leaders? Skills development? Planning? Instructor training? Teamwork/group dynamics? Unless they really have a need for learnin' indoor meeting and powerpoint skills, your TLT should be a full weekend and it should be outdoors. It should be practical, skills-based, and challenging, but with time for reflection and ideas and "how do I do this with my patrol?" For example, if planning is somethin' that they really need help with, then go somewhere new, plan a really tight, fun schedule, show them hands-on how da planning and execution works, and give 'em time to think and talk about it and then maybe plan out a trip for their patrol that's similar. If skills development is a big need, then do a backpacking trip where yeh get a lot of chances to teach (and especially practice) packing, navigation, what to do when lost , cooking, LNT, etc. so that they really become confident in those things for leadin' their guys. If teamwork and group dynamics is a big need, find a full high-and-low ropes / COPE course and go there, with a lot of reflection/discussion after each element. Then follow up da next day with a hard day outing where yeh try to put what they learned about workin' in a team to use on something closer to an average outing for your troop. You get da picture, eh? It takes more time than one evening. Even more time than a single weekend, but at least a weekend is a good kickoff. Yeh need to tailor it to where your youth leaders are at, which has the added bonus that it's not goin' to be repetitious from year to year, since each year they're goin' to need something a bit different. And it needs to be outdoors, where boys and men really do scouting. Oh, yah. Pay some kid to bring a paintball gun and to shoot any adult who pulls out an organizational chart or a job description. If yeh can't do scoutin' without that kind of silly adult mishmash, yeh deserve to be lyin' on da floor with a red paint wound. At least that way yeh make a good first aid scenario. Beavah

Yah, I gotta admit I was a bit of a rebellious fellow in my youth, eh? If I were da SPL and ASPL, I'd just go ahead with planning the meal thing, workin' with you and whatever boys were interested. The Scoutmaster doesn't have to be invited. And they don't have to encourage their friends and patrol mates to show up to an adults' caroling event. Sometimes it's best just to proceed rather than to argue. It teaches its own lessons. Besides, this year in particular da plight of the homeless is particularly acute, I'm told. I think da boys got the notion right of serving those most in need. Beavah

I agree. That does not add to the requirements and it is good guidance to leaders. Yah, but it does add to da requirements in some folks' eyes, eh? What the lad is saying is that kids who can do more must be held to a higher standard. CrossRamWedge's son is suggesting that by and large lads who just do the minimum to get Eagle he has a problem with. The minimum is the minimum, eh? For someone who is only capable of da minimum, it's fine. We'd all be proud of a lad strugglin' with a severe handicap or some really difficult issues who managed to get Eagle doin' the minimum. We'd celebrate it! But da high school athlete and salutatorian who does only what he barely needs to to get by, or to manipulate naive adults who get all twisted up over "don't add to the requirements?" Not Eagle Scout material in da eyes of his peers like CrossRamWedge's son. Cheapens da rank and weakens the scoutin' program for everybody. And if we let it happen, that's our fault and our weak program. Beavah