Beavah

Yah, and before then too, eh? Youth servin' on boards of review goes back a long time. The program change happened in 1990, and a lot of units shifted only gradually. As GoldFox points out, there are still plenty out there that use the practice, or some hybrid of includin' one youth member. GoldFox, if you've alerted the district and the DE, then you've already alerted the council, eh? The DE is on the council payroll, and several folks on the district committee serve on council committees and boards. You've done everything you can do unless you hold a senior adult leadership position in the unit, which I'm guessing from your posting that you don't. So at this point, relax and go with the flow, or go find a different unit to be a part of if it bothers you so much. In the grand scheme of things, this is an old program feature, but it's not an awful thing or a youth protection issue. Of course, if yeh keep it up, the troop may ask yeh to go find a new unit as well. Beavah Added: GoldFox, please tell us you aren't usin' this issue just to make trouble for the troop that moved in across the street from you and is competin' with you for members (?). (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If Scouters would take more time running "The program as designed" there would be no need for the "Being Active" requirement. Yah, if that were da case, then why is the being active requirement a part of the program as it's been designed? Seems like someone felt it was an important design element to include, eh? I also see lack of meeting attendance is taken as a personal affront by the troop adults. Whaddaya mean you dont want come to my meeting?? How dare you, you ungrateful dopey kid! Yah, hmmm.... thanks for sharin', FScouter. You'll forgive me, but I find this to be a really unusual viewpoint. I wonder if you had some really bad experiences as a youth with a particular scoutmaster that yeh still are holding onto? Never in all my years of Scouting have I seen any adult leader take anything close to the approach that you are seeing in your mind. I honestly don't believe that such folks exist in the real world. We hear it repeated over and over a ridiculous notion that BSA says active is nothing more than being registered. I see it a only a cheap ploy to discredit BSA, somehow advocating an idea that BSA is crazy, therefore we can do or not do anything we want. FScouter, like the case above, I think your projecting an odd scene in your brain which doesn't correspond to what anybody is really doing or saying. I think what's really happening is that a lot of scouters are looking at a set of guidelines and an approach taken by one small part of an organization, and comparing it to other work by other parts of the organization, and critiquing the work because they care about the organization and its mission. But I'm a bit concerned. If you're finding that you're getting similarly agitated about other non-scouting things where you're "seeing" things in similar ways, that can have underlying medical causes. I know yeh just went through some health issues, and it might be worth a mention at a checkup. We can all get curmudgeonly at times, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, highcountry, I'm with Eamonn. The answer to your particular case is just to drop the lad from the roster. Honestly, I just don't understand the units that keep inactive scouts on the rolls. If the boy shows up to go on the one ski outing because he likes a free vacation with no commitment, yeh politely say "sorry, Joe, but you were well below our attendance expectation so we dropped you from the roster. But if you are ready to come back and make a real commitment to scouting, I can schedule a Scoutmaster's conference the week after the ski trip and we can talk about that." Still, that's a bit of a heavy hammer for a lot of cases, eh? Surely we can expect, as FScouter says, our adult leaders to recognize what "active" really means in terms of giving a boy an award and showing character. "Obligating himself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfilling a member's obligation to the unit..." Unfortunately, "active=registered (as long as you're not thrown out for behavioral reasons)" is exactly what the guidance is currently from da program office in Irving. I wish it weren't so, but that's what it says, that's what's bein' taught, and that's the way it's being implemented. As quite a few people here have reported, eh? While a fair number of units are resisting that "guidance", we've got to be honest about what da guidance is. And what the rules are. Beavah

Yah, I'm never quite sure why so many adults in scouting are so focused on failure. Seems like any time a lad doesn't earn an award on a schedule someone has "failed." The boy has failed the BOR, the SM has failed the boy, the troop has failed the family. I really do think there's a reason why the BSA goes way out of its way to avoid using the word "fail" in any of its literature. That, at least, is consistent. Boys just grow at their own pace, and receive recognitions when they deserve 'em. Not giving a lad an award is not "blocking advancement" or "withholding awards." That's just not the way we think about advancement in Scouting. Fact is, kids and programs and leaders are complicated things, eh? Sometimes a program can be dull or repetitious or a bit to adult-driven or a bit too youth-disorganized, and kids will drift away. Sometimes a kid will be more into sports, or girls, or band, or emergency medicine, or partying, or he might just not enjoy outdoors stuff and will drift away. There are as many reasons for boys to fade and become inactive as there are boys. Most of 'em don't have as much to do with a troop's program as social factors like who a boy's friends are and what his interests are. Same goes for other things, eh? Sometimes when a boy isn't engaged, it's because we're not as engaging as we might be. Sometimes when a boy isn't engaged, it's because he chooses not to be. Farm Mechanics can be a blast, eh? And I hope all Americans understand and respect da hard work of farmers which supports our prosperity. Choosin' not to engage is a boy's choice. But even if it's not fun for the lad, I'm not sure we really want to say that when yeh don't like what your elected representatives have planned, the proper answer is to just not show. Is that da kind of citizenship we expect? Don't like the plan, run to Canada? Is that the kind of citizenship we want to reward? Sometimes when a boy doesn't know something, it's because the teacher could have done a better job, and sometimes when a boy doesn't know something it's because he should have done his homework. And on and on, eh? Only thing I would venture to say is that giving the lad an "A" and a diploma just for sittin' in his seat doesn't accomplish much beyond both the teacher and the boy avoiding responsibility. Same with givin' a lad the highest award in Scoutin' just for being registered and not starting fights with other boys. It's an easy way for both the lad and the adults to avoid responsibility. And that doesn't do a lick for teachin' character. Beavah

Yah, well, that was one of my points, N. I get where you're comin' from, and I agree with you. We all express confidence in the kids, and expect 'em to live up to their Oath. What struck me was that your youth leaders said they did not believe the boy had passed a swim test, and the boy said he did. So two different Trustworthy youth disagreed on a point. I was curious why you assumed the boy (who is not allowed to sign his own requirement) should be believed, but your youth leaders (who are allowed to sign the boy's requirement) should be assumed to be untrustworthy. I just didn't get it. For me, I'd assume that the youth leader was being Trustworthy in his signing or not signing, eh? I think when a youth leader signs for a requirement, that signature is his word that the boy had passed the requirement. I wouldn't force him to give his word when he couldn't. Same for an adult. I wouldn't give my word that the lad had passed if I hadn't seen it myself. That wouldn't be trustworthy in my book. That was my real point/question. I wasn't really sayin' that we assume the lads aren't trustworthy. Sorry I got all wordy and wasn't clear. One of the reasons I think it's important to think about this carefully is because some of those skills are important, eh? The BSA swim test is a big part of our Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat. A boy who really hasn't passed a swim test "in a strong manner" can be put in some real danger if he's permitted on the basis of that signoff to participate in a more advanced water outing. Swimmin' into deep water, fallin' off a boat, flipping a canoe, gettin' into some whitewater. Accidents in water happen fast, eh? We had a cub scout drown this last month within three minutes of arrivin' at a pool, despite lifeguards and lookouts. With that in mind, I can understand why your youth leaders might be reluctant to give their word that the boy had passed his check, eh? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I reckon it's always a good thing to honestly reflect on and assess ourselves, eh? Da BSA is like any large organization. It has its issues. The Irving office is like any office full of executives. Dilbert is not a comic strip, it's a documentary. Yah, and sure, every now and again a local troop or (more often) a district or (less often) a council runs off da rails. Yah, and sure, wherever money gets concentrated it's like manure. It can help make things grow if you've got good seeds, but it sure attracts a lot of flies. That havin' been said, there's a lot of good in people too, and a lot of good in the organization. Scouting the Movement remains fairly strong, and is alive and doin' OK in the BSA. There are a lot of simply wonderful adults, dedicated leaders and committee members and board members and execs out there. And a whole army of really great kids, eh? Scorpionace, if yeh really have a problem with out-and-out embezzlement in your unit then yeh need to talk to the Chartered Org. Rep. and Institution Head pronto. It's their troop, and odds are they have institutional policies in place for respondin' to such things. Leastways if they're a church or such. If your problem is more with dumb decisions or the financial controls that are in place, you take that up with the committee, eh? There should be a treasurer separate from the CC, and unrelated to the CC or the SM. Someone other than the treasurer should get a copy of the monthly bank statements for review. Yeh might decide that two signatures are required on checks. You should put a limit on the expenditures a SM or treasurer on their own can authorize without committee vote. There should be a plan for da purchase, maintenance, and depreciation of capital equipment like a trailer or tents. If yeh find that a few folks on da committee are blockin' reasonable financial controls, yeh approach the COR and IH and express your concern, and leave it up to them whether to "insist." And then yeh don't worry about it too much, beyond decidin' whether you are goin' to participate in fundraising if yeh think the accounting is poor. Sometimes da way to deal with da good ol' boys is just avoid 'em and go camping. That's where all the fun is anyways. Beavah

Yah, I agree with yeh on all counts, Twocubdad. The proper place to address growth in character is along the way, at each rank progressively. That's how advancement is meant to be used. You know me, though. Whenever I'm gettin' only one side of da story and it's gettin' loud, strident, and personal, I imagine what the other side may be, and what its arguments might be. Part of my trainin' I guess. Most troops and SMs that are playing fast-and-loose don't immediately step up and explain the appeals process and set up an appeal, eh? And we've all had to deal with the helicopter parent from time to time. Best just to pour cold water whenever one side or another starts kickin' up the flames. I think one of da hard things for a lot of troops is that they don't have a clear understanding in their head of what a Star Scout should look like, or what a Life Scout should look like, eh? They do have an understanding of what they want an Eagle Scout to look like, but they've never worked backwards and really figured out what that means in terms of steps along the way. So for Star and Life (or even First Class), boys get the badge just by checking boxes and doin' the proverbial "How does the troop make you feel?" 10 minute BOR. The boys and parents learn and expect that yeh get awards by checkin' boxes, not by really developin' skills and character. And next thing yeh know a lad is up for Eagle and folks in the troop are goin' "Wait a minute! That's not our vision of Eagle!". Place to fix it of course is down at the lower ranks, by having a vision of what a First Class Scout should be, and a Star Scout, and a Life Scout, and usin' those ranks to teach skills and character. I tell troops that when they sign for Life they're really sayin' a boy is almost ready to make Eagle. But then, not everybody agrees with me. Eagle is a "big deal" in folks' minds, and Life ain't. Even so, it is possible for a lad to change, eh? That bright, active, committed high school freshman Life Scout can become that bored, surly, testing-the-edges, experimenting-with-behaviors high school senior sometimes. When that happens, I have to say I understand and support da units that want to say "Whoa, wait a minute." Who we hold up to the younger boys as Eagle Scouts affects how we teach character to 'em in a big way. A Scoutmaster in such a case has to be honest when he signs his name, doesn't he? Like you, I have no doubt that mdsummer45's son will be given his Eagle badge at some point. So da only question is how to use the process to further develop the boy's character. I think that's best done by teachin' him to listen respectfully, disagree politely, and come to appreciate that Eagle means more in people's eyes than just checkin' the boxes and not gettin' in trouble. I care most about what the lad learns in the process, and I'd hate it to be that it's OK to dis on his SM as being a passive-aggressive twad. Besides, if he understands my "Scouter's Minute" above, it should really help him make his case to the committee! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm afraid we are slowly gravitating toward a "one hour of entertainment during the week plus once a month camping club" type troop. Yah, acco mentioned this in the parent thread. I feel his pain. I've seen (and am seeing) a few troops go this way. From where I sit as a silly old furry council fellow, I think troops generally conform to their adult leaders over time, eh? Scouters who like to do water just naturally end up doin' lots of water stuff. That's still youth led, it's just that the youth see and get interested in whatever the adult mentors show 'em. And the one thing that seems hard for lots of adult leaders to "get" these days is bein' able to talk about values in public. They're just uncomfortable with it, and they don't do it well or often. Yah, sure, some units make compromises on the uniform and such, but that's a far lesser failing in my mind than givin' up the notion of values and character as a core part of what we are for the lads. Camping club indeed! And honestly, I think the weakness in those values conversations leads to all the advancement method silliness we see, too. Just a patch club! So I'm curious if others are seein' that, and if you are, how you've dealt with it. Either as commissioners or committee members or youth service scouters, what have yeh done that helps adults shine the values end of da program as much as the backpacking or badges? Beavah

Where would I find the "rules and regulations" you referance below? Hee hee... well, you agreed to 'em when you signed your adult leader application. You *should* be able to request a copy from your council office. I think they're still a bin item, and they'll definitely have copies around they can xerox. Some offices get all cagey and weird about givin' these out, though, so be prepared to explain your interest. The part yeh want is Article VII, Section 1. B

Yah, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that an active-task form of discipline like doin' pushups often works well for ADHD lads. In ways that a timeout or a lecture really don't. It can be just fun, eh? Doesn't have to be Pappy's Young Marines. Beavah

Yah, just checkin' back into this (long!) thread, eh? Glad you and your son have an understandin' of the process now, and that things are proceedin'. Whatever you may think, your troop is doing a fine job of following the process. I fully expect that at some level, someone will choose to give your son the Eagle rank. Now that there's some breathing room and things have calmed down a bit, I'm goin' to jump back to your reply to BrentAllen, just to provide some more insight. Therein lies the problem....my son does not know EXACTLY what he has done to cross this SM. All that has been told is that "my perception(exact word)is that you do not understand the Scout Spirit ..Scout law." No examples or specific events have ever been given to my son as to why the SM has this perception. My son has no criminal record, does not do drugs and does not drink In Scouting, we don't give awards for not drinking. Yah, that sounds trite, but there's a gentle point to be made. A boy might do nothing wrong and still not be deserving of an award. A lad on a swim team may do nothing wrong and still not earn a varsity letter. We don't pin medals on citizens for not stealing. Scout Spirit and the Oath and Law are positive rules, not negative ones like "thou shalt not steal". They require more than not doing anything wrong, they require goin' well out of your way to do special things. Especially when it comes to our highest award in Boy Scoutin', they require demonstratin' a lot of positive virtue. Really steppin' forward without expecting to "get" something for doing so. That can be hard to articulate, and it doesn't really lend itself to listing off a series of "specific events." In fact, it might be the absence of specific positive events that are the problem. It also doesn't mean that the SM feels "crossed" in any way. Might be just that he feels your son hasn't fully lived up to his potential to "do his best to do his duty" in the troop and he's bein' honest about it. Helping your son be prepared for that, and struggle with it, and learn from it, might be a very good thing. It's easy, but childish, to criticize folks we disagree with as being passive-aggressive personalities or out to get us or whatnot. How many young lads use "My science teacher doesn't like me / has a personality conflict with me" to justify not doin' well on the test? That's a child's way of copin' with disappointment by makin' it someone else's fault. And we adults do it too, eh? Sometimes, a SM doesn't get back to us not because he's being passive aggressive, but because he's dealin' with 40 other boys and families, on top of work and his own family. Fact is, your son has spent 7 years in this troop, and cares about it. The SM can't really be all that bad, eh? Otherwise yeh both would have left 6 years ago. In the end, it's really about what we want our sons to become. Never let it be about what we want our sons to get. If your son works the appeals process with respect for the SM as an adult and mentor, it will help him become a stronger man. If he takes the SM's criticism with grace and dignity and self reflection, that in the end will matter more than the patch he sews on his left pocket for his final weeks as a Boy Scout. Beavah

Yah, wanted to move this over to a new thread just so it didn't hijack the other one, eh? And because it's a frightfully boring re-hash of old stuff we find in other threads. FScouter said: Seeing as how all the versions are the same, it doesn't make any difference. The differences come from different individuals reading the same thing and choosing to interpret it to support their own purposes. If a boy is not participating in the troop program, a rule written by the adults is not going to make him active. BSA makes it clear that it is the job of the Scoutmaster to engage the boys and create a program such that they will actively participate. Writing a "you must attend or else" rule only shows that the SM has failed. Instead, he should be conferencing with those boys whose participation is waning and determine ways to increase it. ------- I think FScouter is combinin' two things here that are really very different. Sometimes boys are fading out of a troop, eh? Can happen for all kinds of reasons, good and bad. In those cases, of course a Patrol Leader or scouter is goin' to reach out and encourage. But in those cases, the lads aren't actively pushing for advancement to Star or Life, eh? They're just not comin'. F is right, no rule is goin' to make 'em come. For the Star or Life requirements, a boy is expected to be active in his patrol and troop for a period of time, and serve in a position of responsibility for a period of time. In applying for an award, he's asking to be recognized for those real contributions to his peers. So they should be real contributions, eh? This case is not the same thing as a boy who is just fadin' out of the program who needs some outreach and attention. Sometimes, it's a lad (or parent) trying to get an award while doin' the least he can. So in da second case, the issue is not how to help a boy be active, it's whether to give a boy an award. Or, in the case of settin' expectations to help a lad or a family understand their responsibility, it's usin' advancement to teach responsibility. Encouragin' a boy to come, and spelling out the expectations for an award are different things. ------- We have three different versions from da BSA on how to interpret "active". The one we all agreed to is the one in the Rules & Regulations: Rules & Regulations An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age The youth leader handbooks say things like the PL must live up to clear expectations, like: Patrol Leader's Handbook While you are a patrol leader, your troop and patrol are going to count on you to live up to some clear expectations. They will look to you to: *Represent the patrol at all patrol leaders council meetings. *Play a key role in planning, leading, and evaluating patrol meetings and activities. *Help the patrol prepare to participate in all troop activities. *Attend junior leader training. *Set a good example by having a positive attitude, wearing the scout uniform, showing patrol spirit, and expecting the best from yourself and others. *Devote the time necessary to be an effective leader. etc. Then we have the current program guidance which someone's DE quoted to them as "active means registered": National Advancement Committee / Staff Guidance A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if: 1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current). 2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons. 3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through personal contact, and so on). So in the Rules & Regs and in the youth leader handbooks, we see a whole list of things where the scout has duties and obligations, eh? But in the program guidance, the scout only has two duties: Be registered, and not be expelled for disciplinary reasons. #3 as FScouter points out isn't a duty of the boy, it's a duty of the adult leaders. That difference - a boy having obligations and a boy not having obligations - it's important. And it's not just a matter of personal readin'. To claim that the third piece of literature says the same thing as the former two I personally feel is poppycock. It is a classic case of "subtracting from the requirements." Sadly, the third piece of literature is what council advancement committees are bein' taught at present, and how the Irving staff is handlin' appeals which reach them. We might agree with da new interpretation, eh? That's fine. But we should be honest that it's a new interpretation which really does conflict with other documents. I personally in workin' with units choose not to fight this fight, eh? If a unit is settin' expectations for boys in line with the Rules & Regulations instead of da advancement guidance, I support 'em in their efforts to teach character. Same with units that go the other way. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I sometimes classify troops in my mind based on their focus on da methods. Some troops are Advancement troops. That's where most of their energy is focused/spent. Some are Uniform troops. If yeh go to a meetin' they'll spend a lot of time on uniformin'. Some are Outdoors troops. That's where most of their energy is focused. and so on, eh? The one type that doesn't fit is Service troops, eh? Ones that spend a lot of their time and energy really focused on service. There are some of those out there. Yeh never really find troops that focus on all 8 methods equally. Troops have to play to their values and strengths. So it's as good a way of keepin' 'em straight in my mind so as to help folks find the right troop for their son, or da right troop for them to volunteer with. Beavah

We scout leaders are charged with producing high quality citizens... I have taught and explained the "leading by example" routine to no avail. He is a just a lousy PL. Yah, hmmm... Maybe the lad needs to be doin' pushups himself, eh? Rather than lecturin' him about leading by example (and then writin' him off as being lousy when that doesn't work), why not try a different approach? Different kids respond to different things, eh? Some lads may need things to be more concrete and tangible. Just don't give up on the lad. His mates elected him for a reason, eh? Beavah

Just to be clear, BSA does NOT define "active" as being "registered". What BSA has said is the a troop may NOT define "active" with an arbitrary percentage. Yah, all depends on whether you're followin' da Rules & Regulations version, the SPL/PL Handbook version, or the current view of da national advancement folks, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... I wonder if there's an element of Trustworthy which applies to Scoutmasters bein' trustworthy when doin' signoffs where the lad is supposed to demonstrate an ability, not simply claim an ability? Even if a lad is being honest, he might not really understand what swimming 75 yards "in a strong manner" should be, eh? His doggy paddle might be his version of "a strong manner." That's why feedback from others is part of da process. Besides, if we really trust da youth leaders with T-2-1 signoffs and the youth PL says that he doesn't think a lad achieved the requirement, then shouldn't we respect that youth leader's decision? Isn't the Patrol Leader trustworthy? I expect rather than futzin' around with varying memories of summer camp, most PLs would just take the boy to a local pool or lake and do a swim test. Takes all of a few minutes. The boys can even meet after school and use the school or community pool durin' open swim. Seems like a better approach. Yah, and kinder than havin' all the boy's buddies whisperin' for a year about how he "cheated" to get First Class. Plus it means the SM and PL are bein' trustworthy about a signoff. We're workin' with kids, eh? We want 'em to learn to be trustworthy, but every kid worthy of the title is goin' to look to get away with what he can, eh? I expect none of us just assume the (adult) treasurer is trustworthy. I bet we do things like require two signatures on checks, or have someone else review the monthly account statements. Just prudent, eh? I know we all do reference checks and criminal background checks on adult leaders, right? And if we don't just assume adults are trustworthy, seems like it's prudent not to simply assume the lads are always trustworthy, eh? They're still learnin'. Trust, but also observe and teach and give feedback. Beavah

Sorry Beav, I've been around for a while and it has never happened in the District I serve. This might be due to the fact that the letters do not go to anyone on the BOR, they are requested by the Scout and sent to the Scout who brings them with him when he attends the BOR. Yah, another pirate district out there, Aaarrgghh! Runnin' rum under da noses of those guys who write da national guidelines. Yo ho, yo ho and all that, eh? Of course the lads aren't supposed to see (and screen) their confidential recommendations, eh? Poor rec letters do happen occasionally if the lads can't pre-screen 'em. Most commonly from the folks where the boy doesn't have a choice who to give it to, like his only employer. And sometimes, a lad who has been a real turd can have a hard time findin' anyone to write a good rec, eh? The reference may try to beg off, but the boy insists. Yah, and sometimes the boy doesn't care and is only goin' through things because mom or dad are pushin'. For that reason, I really do advise folks never to wait until the EBOR to open and read da letters. Every now and then yeh can get a real shock and wish yeh had time to think about it and set things up differently, or at least make some phonecalls as John-in-KC suggests. That's particularly true of EBORs done by the district, but it also applies to unit EBORs. Had ones where the employer indicated the boy was being terminated because of "excessive missing inventory", the school wrote a "faint praise" letter intimating serious behavioral issues, da church said the lad had been kicked out of their teen youth group, etc. Had a peer reference once say that while he hung out with the Eagle candidate sometimes, he really felt the boy was a bully and smoked way too much marijuana to be qualified for Eagle. Yeh really don't want to be readin' those for the first time in da semi-public settin' of an Eagle BOR. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Scouts in our troop who fail to behave as Scouts are not punished... Scout may be removed from the activity and given the opportunity to correct their behavior.... I will allow that sometimes these reminders may be rather loud and forceful. Yah, I just had to chuckle at this, eh? I reckon that every lad in Twocubdad's troop would talk about this as being punished / yelled at / etc. Essentially, pullin' a kid out of an activity and yellin' at or lecturing him is just another form of punishment. One that can be far more embarrassing than snappin' off a few pushups. I've seen lads quit scouts after such incidents. The point is that boys occasionally commit minor infractions. Every unit has to have some "stock" thing that they use to deal with minor infractions. Doesn't really matter what it is so long as it serves as that small reminder / time out. It can be pushups, it can be songs, it can be sittin' out for a bit, it can be an extra round of KP, it can be losin' dessert privilege for the evening. Whatever. As long as it's fairly and consistently applied, it becomes part of that troop's way of doin' things and it's fine. Personally, I think yeh should save the removed-from-activity-lectured-by-SM thing for more serious infractions, eh? But that's just me. No matter what you choose as your response to minor incidents, there will be some first year boys who need time to get used to it because it's different than what their parents use. If yeh do push-ups, there may be a boy who can't and who is really embarrassed and so yeh have to adapt. If you do lectures, the same thing happens, eh? I've seen lads collapse in tears because a SM pulled 'em out of an activity and lectured them. The reverse is also true. Some boys love to be a ham, so singin' is a reward rather than a consequence. Some smart-alecks love to get in a word fight with a SM so lecturin' is a reward rather than a consequence. Boys who regularly clean dishes at home won't think it's very hard to clean a pot, but a lad who has never cleaned dishes at home will feel that's a catastrophically unfair punishment. Just da way it is. So yeh have to choose some "normal" responses to minor incidents, eh? And no matter what you choose, you're goin' to have to adapt it a bit for individual boys, especially young lads who aren't yet used to the troop routine. Be awfully careful about judgin' other troops' approaches just because they're different from what you do. Different is mostly just different. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, good question True Believer. I think this is a much harder problem than most realize, eh? I've never bought the whole "teach it to learn it" bit. Generally what that results in is a bunch of instructors with poor skills teachin' somethin' wrong. Just look at what often happens with young pseudo-MB instructors at a lot of camps, eh? Doesn't do a service to anybody. If yeh already have a lot of skill and experience, needin' to think through how to simplify and present what's most important to a beginner will further develop your expertise, but that's not what we're talkin' about with kids. Plus, it also takes time to learn how to teach. That too is a skill which must be developed. Yeh don't just dump kids into instructor roles without preparin' 'em by coaching their teachin' skills for a while. Repetition and regular use definitely help, but in a bigger troop where yeh can't observe everyone all the time, it's also possible for the lads to repeat doin' things the wrong way. Or to repeat doin' things the lazy way. So that by itself won't do it either. I would look to your troop culture when it comes to sign-offs. Are yeh really signin' kids off for proficiency? Meanin' that boys only get a signoff when they accomplish somethin' completely on their own, start to finish, without any help or prompting, and in the situation where it's needed? For example, does a lad get a signoff for planning/preparing a meal the first time he plans/prepares a meal? Or the second? If so, yeh aren't signing off for proficiency, because nobody can become proficient after one or two tries. And if you're not followin' the BSA rules and signin' off for proficiency, of course the boys don't remember how to do it after a couple of months. If that's where you're at and yeh want to change your troop culture, I think yeh lay out a 1-2 year plan. First, yeh set up your next troop TLT as at least a long-weekend campout followed by a series of once-a-month all day campouts. Your goal is to address da skills of your patrol leaders. If they aren't proficient themselves, then of course they're not goin' to be successful instructors. You demonstrate for them what proficiency means, and what a signoff should mean. Give 'em blank copies of the T-2-1 book pages and make 'em "earn" signoffs from you and your other adult leaders again as practice. Once they've built their own proficiency, then yeh work with 'em on teachin' their patrol, and doin' signoffs. You start by helping 'em plan instruction and co-teachin' with them, then gettin' more hands-off as you see them able to handle it on their own. And you start by double-checking them on all signoffs and then gradually return the process to them as they become proficient at evaluating skills and holdin' their peers accountable. Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Evaluate applies to instructin' and evaluatin' skills as much as camping skills, eh? Only when you've evaluated that they're OK to "solo" on instruction and skills signoffs should yeh give that to them. And because it took real work for them to earn that trust, they'll take it seriously when they teach and sign off their guys. And for that 1-2 year stretch, yeh use some skills checks as part of the SM conference and some skills questions as part of da BOR, to help reinforce to the boys that their patrol leader is doin' 'em a good turn by making them properly prepared. Not just bein' "mean" or a hard-case on signoffs. Keep the feedback loop tight for the PLs at the beginnin'. After a year or two, it will become part of troop culture, and the boys will take to enforcin' it on their own, with pride. Beavah

Yah, this happens sometimes. Sometimes a unit or district will tip off a SM on the letters and let the SM deal with it as a deferral and mentoring opportunity. If it goes to a BOR I've never seen a BOR approve the rank under that circumstance, eh? We expect a lad to demonstrate livin' by the Oath and Law in his life, eh? His life in the troop is one part of that (SM's recommendation). His life at school, and church, and home, and work, and all that is also part of it. Givin' a boy our highest award if a number of da other people in his life don't think he deserves it neither serves the boy nor the community well. Beavah

I honestly don't know if the high cost of gasoline this past summer was due to OPEC or to the futures traders. I suspect the latter. Mostly da latter, eh? OPEC was maxed out on production tryin' to keep the cost down, so that western nations wouldn't start switchin' to alternatives. But those "futures traders", they were your fellow Americans' 401(k) and pension funds and da guy next door who bought energy ETF's on E-Trade, eh? Nuthin' nefarious about it. Just that all da other investments didn't look good, so people were buyin' commodities. That's the way the free market works. People put money in the best investment they can. Yeh better believe that's goin' to happen again when we hit the post-recession inflation cycle. Commodities are one of da things that traditionally hold value in inflationary times. Me, for energy policy, I'm lookin' for the long-term health of the country. We need affordable domestic energy that won't make a mess of da mountains and rivers we all love. Don't much care what it is, want the market and smart Americans to sort that out, not the government showerin' money on one technology just because it's got better lobbyists or more constituents in a state with a senator higher on the seniority list. I ain't givin' up my truck, but I expect to pay the real cost for it. Don't want to be subsidized by havin' the government (my fellow citizens) pay for keepin' the company afloat or for da pollution cleanup costs or any of that. Like a good scout, I expect to pay my own way for my choices. Beavah

Yah, I suspect someone in your council added that line. Probably because they had some sort of issue with an adult who was elected PL on a WB course recently. B

Yah, BA, I agree with yeh, eh? I'm not a fan of government-imposed fuel economy standards. Don't like Uncle Sam tellin' industry how they should do things. The irony is only that as much as the Big 3 fought CAFE, if they'd have instead spent as much time and money complyin' they would have been better off. JoeBob, sorry, mate, there's no amount of domestic drillin' that can even scratch the price of oil. Yeh need to listen to the likes of some old-school Republicans like T. Boone Pickens, who really understand the domestic oil industry and reserves. Oil prices depend on only a few things in the long run, eh? Industrial and developing market demand, major producer supply and quality, and the strength of the dollar. Developin' market demand had been skyrocketin' until the economic collapse, major producer supply at best static, and the dollar weakening. Since the collapse the dollar has strengthened and industrial and developin' market demand have collapsed. But that's short-term, eh? If the economy recovers, the dollar is goin' to fall because of all the bucks we've been printin' like mad, and demand is goin' to increase. Gas is goin' to go back up to $4 a gallon and then higher. Plan on it. Best national security move we could possibly make is to slap a Patriot Tax on gasoline of $2 or more a gallon, and increase it every year. It would do more to harm our enemies than all the soldiers we've sent overseas. Unlike CAFE or fair housing rules, it's not the government tellin' industry how to get the job done, it just uses the market to get the job done a year or two earlier than when we'll be forced to anyways. But by and large, we Americans are stoooopid. For 30 years we watched as our enemies in the Middle East deliberately manipulated supply so as to keep oil prices low enough that we wouldn't change our habits. They knew we had a short attention span, and our politicians when they couldn't be bought are only short-term thinkers. They win. They're rich, we're broke, and our dollars fund roadside bombs blowing up our kids. Pains me as a conservative to watch. Real conservatives are fiscally responsible. And not stupid. Nah, we don't want government tellin' industry what to build. But it's sometimes necessary for government to provide for the common defense. Beavah

No BSA prohibition. The Scoutmaster designates who can sign off for rank requirements. Can be ASMs or youth members like Patrol Leaders. The Scoutmaster approves boys for beginning MBs with a particular counselor. Wise Scoutmasters (or wise troops) do everything in their power to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety, as well as givin' their son some room to grow and learn from other adults, by not signing off on their own boy's advancement. Beavah

Hi HiStyleRider! Welcome to da forums! That's a pretty grand achievement, havin' seven good buddies make it to Eagle together. Congratulations all around! There's no rules or protocols for how troops do Eagle Courts of Honor. It's really all over the map. In lots of troops, the troop hosts the COH and the boys plan the event. In some troops, they delegate some of the event planning to the parents/family of the boy(s). Some troops, especially smaller troops, do one boy at a time. In other troops, especially larger troops, it's common to combine and award several Eagle badges at once. Some troops award Eagle rank at "regular" courts of honor. Sometimes boys speak, sometimes they don't. Sometimes outside speakers speak, sometimes they don't. My advice would be to keep it simple and keep it from gettin' too long. Not everyone has to speak. Perhaps the boys might select one or two representatives? There are a few resources out there, includin' Mark Ray's Eagle Court of Honor book, that your troop can use for ideas in terms of ceremony features if they want. Beavah