Beavah

Yah, it's also worth readin' amethyst's posts carefully, eh? She says that lads are allowed to wear camo pants with the shirt. Not that anyone (other than their parents) is telling them that they should. Not that anyone is sayin' that the official BSA uniform is camo pants. Not even that the official pack uniform is camo pants. So there's nuthin' at all to suggest that a unit leader is doin' any of the things BobWhite is talkin' about. They just have some parents who don't quite get it and some lads who own half a uniform. Welcome to the club! I reckon that applies to 90%+ of da units out there. Doesn't make their leaders bad people, or their parents. Doesn't mean they're harming scouts at many levels. Just means they have somethin' to work on. I bet it's not the only thing to work on, and I bet it ain't even the most important thing to work on. And it sounds like amethyst is goin' to work on it. Politely, respectfully, not by requiring a uniform but by teachin' her tigers what the uniform means and why it should be worn proudly. Easy, eh? Guess we're done. Beavah

Yah, BW, I suspect what highcountry means is that the lads get 100% of their fundraised dollars as a credit to their scout accounts, from which they can pay meal costs for outings, summer camp fees and da like. B

Yah, the memo was a memo about scout camps and other council events, eh? It's a memo for SE's. What it's tryin' to accomplish is to make sure that in some areas of the country the scout camp doesn't look like Pappy's Young Marines. You know, 600 kids, mostly in camo, has a look & feel that the BSA doesn't want as part of its image. People might think we're da Waco compound or somethin'. That's not at all the same thing as a few boys or adult leaders wearin' their camo pants or hunting jacket on a troop outing, eh? Which is why there is no prohibition on wearing camo incidentally as part of unit activities published anywhere in the scouting community. It's an urban legend. A fiction. As far as uniforming goes, it is marketed and sold to be "uniform", eh? As a Method of Scouting, it has value. Like all Methods of Scouting, there's goin' to be variation in how well any particular unit is going to do usin' the method. Some units run extensive, international outdoors trips for Outdoors Method. Some work hard to do a few local car camping trips in the good-weather months. Some adults are grand at Adult Association, some struggle as mentors relatin' to kids. Same thing happens with uniforms. Worth workin' on, but not worth calling people lousy scouters over. There is a BSA trademark interest in preservin' the uniform, so nobody should be claiming that camo pants are "part of the uniform." At the same time, there's nothing ethically "wrong" about allowing boys to wear camo pants with their uniform shirt on an outing, if that's what they happen to have. Nor is there anything wrong about a troop not requiring a full uniform for some or any events. Lots of units recognize that it's easier to get lads into shirts for a meeting because it doesn't require 'em stripping to their skivvies in the parking lot to change pants. Beavah

Yah, Frank17, listen to the BobWhite. The SM determines who can sign off on requirements, eh? So it's perfectly reasonable to allow only a fully trained ASM to do that. In fact, that makes a lot of sense, since part of the purpose of OLS is to train leaders in teachin' those skills. When a troop determines an adult leader is "functional" is up to the troop, eh? Generally speakin', the best troops take their time and use people according to their training and skills. In the beginning it's always best to supervise new folks and see how well they interact with kids, whether they show good judgment, etc. Can't say I care about the label one way or the other. Not sure why it would matter, or why it would be confusing. Is there something else goin' on here you're not sharing? What I would disagree with is the notion that anybody should just be shoved into a committee position. Committee members shouldn't be warm bodies either; they should be chosen for their skills and commitment just like direct-contact leaders. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what may be hard is da math, eh? With 310,000,000 people, if yeh want to give each person 1,000,000 dollars, then you need to be giving away 310,000,000,000,000 dollars. That's 310 TRILLION needed. Givin' away 800 billion only give each of us about $2500. Or, more properly, givin' away 850 billion, plus da 3 trillion or so the Federal Reserve is floating, plus the new $500 billion Obama is proposing, plus another $500 billion in pork, auto bailouts and such. Let's call it 5 Trillion, or about $15000 each. With interest on the debt and inflation caused by the debt, that's over $100,000 per person that we're shelling out over the long haul. So after you pay your $100K+ plus over the next 20-30 years, and our spouses pay theirs, will anyone have anything left to give to our kids? Don't forget, each of them has to pay $100K+ for this too... on top of payin' for our medical care and social security. Oops. Forgot the $10 Trillion of previous debt left to us by the bush administration, eh? Make that between $300K and $400K each of us and each of our kids and grandkids owes. B

Yah, I can't see where it's relevant at all that Leaders B might leave the troop in a year. That should have nothin' to do with how the incident is handled. Unless there's some prior incidence of bad behavior or overreacting by Leader B? Why would yeh even begin to consider starting a second troop? Too many unanswered questions, eh? So I'm back to basic principles. 1) Yeh selected leaders for a reason, you should support their judgment. A unit leader should never be put in the position of feelin' like they need to quit for responding to what looked like a youth protection incident. Ever. 2) If law enforcement is called about a scout leader at a scouting event, yeh take that very seriously. After the investigation, either the leader is gone because the complaint was warranted or the parent is gone because the accusation was false. Last thing the unit needs is a parent calling the cops every time she has an issue. A grown woman grappling with someone else's adolescent or teenage boy on da surface is a bit out there, eh? Barrin' some context that makes it more appropriate, it really is somethin' that I'd expect an adult leader to step in on. Boys come with families. When we lose a kid, we lose the parents as volunteers. When we lose the parents, we lose the kid as a scout. That's just the way of things. A boy who is a discipline problem should not get a "bye" because his parent is a good volunteer and yeh don't want to lose the parent. And a parent who is a problem should not get a "bye" because the kid is a good kid and you don't want to lose him. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I was their advancement chair. I just want to know what to tell my families when they ask what is correct according to BSA Rules and Rugulations. Yah, yeh want to be careful, eh? BSA Rules and Regulations is a specific document. It governs big-picture corporate stuff. Uniforming in the individual programs is part of da program materials, like the Boy Scout Handbook or the Insignia Guide. What we're talkin' about is the latter, eh? How to wear the uniform is part of the program materials, which give advice and instruction on how to run an effective scouting program. Well worth knowin', but not the same thing as Rules & Regulations. Beavah

1. Are there any other authoritative documents which determine things like what length knife a boy can carry? Yah. Da laws of your state. Also local councils can make additional rules which apply to council-owned properties, and the National Camp Standards for long-term camps (aka "Summer Camp") may be either more or less strict than G2SS. Aside from that, policies which affect units from da BSA side (as opposed to CO side) are all compiled in G2SS. 2. Are there any non-documentary methods for establishing policy? What, like oral tradition? No. 3. Does WB teach undocumented policy? No. But poor instructors might. 5. Is there authoritative documentation for Totin'Chip / Fire'm Chit practices? Yah. It's on the cards. See http://scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/firem.aspx http://scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/totin.aspx And of course the Boy Scout Handbook & Fieldbook. 4. Is there any practical way to get around the conflict between the absoluteness of LNT teaching and the 'wink-wink' actual practices of fire building, cat holes, and the like? Leave No Trace is an ethic, eh? It's not a set of rules. It says that an ethical outdoorsman does everything in his power to leave no trace of his passage on the land, so that other visitors can enjoy and benefit from camping as much as he has. The actual practices of how to do that properly vary accordin' to what the environment is in the area, and the type of activity. While leavin' no trace is a goal, the principles of LNT are all fairly straightforward to put into practice. What's hard about "Plan ahead and prepare?" I agree with you that adopting this ethic is in conflict with a lot of past BSA practice, and even a few of our T-2-1 requirements, eh? Yah, and to be sure, lots of old-time WBers haven't kept up their outdoor skills or bothered to learn. For that reason, BSA has an absolutely awful reputation among the majority of land managers as bein' the worst sort of campers, and I know more than a few senior rangers who would ban us from the woods if they could find a legal way to do it. As it is, a lot of 'em are adopting strict limits on group size, which acts as an indirect way of forcin' us out. Some of these discussions are goin' on at National, eh? I expect to see da T-2-1 woods tools stuff go away the next round, leastways it's bein' talked about. Most of da other materials are gettin' cleaned up so as to be LNT-consistent. Our hypocrisy problem stems primarily from da "old dogs," though. I reckon it will continue until we replace guys who grew up hacking at trees and havin' big bonfires with ones who've shed a tear after seein' their old campin' haunts become denuded trash heaps. In the mean time, nothin' says your unit can't be a good example, eh? Maybe if yeh at least get your lads to "do as we say" they'll be the ones to drag the BSA into better ethical choices in the woods. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, the Al Mahdi Scout Association is a member of da Lebanese Scout Federation. Those are real WOSM scouts, just like the BSA, eh? I think there are two lessons. First, that Hezbollah, like Hamas in Gaza, has become a real social movement. We in the U.S. hear about their border clashes with Israel and such, eh? But what we miss is that these folks are providin' community stability, schools, youth activities, a social support network. They're fillin' a vacuum in an impoverished area. Best not to mix up Hezbollah with Sunni nihilists like Al Queda. They're very different organizations. Also tough to judge folks in a land that's been shaken by externally-funded civil war for generations. If we'd been invaded as many times in the last 40 years as poor suffering Lebanon, I reckon there'd be a more martial character to our youth programs too. So these are fellow scouts, and they might well be the kind of example in their community we'd expect scouts to be. But da second lesson is to remember that there can be a dark side to Scoutin'. Khaki and fitness and salutes and neckers are good things for kids, but if we take 'em too seriously, they can be put to bad ends. Been done before, as others have mentioned. I reckon some U.S. scouters would be right proud of such a well-uniformed, respectful, obedient bunch of young men, eh? They even say that Al Mahdi Scouters go strictly by the book in their Scout programs! That's why we must also teach Friendly, Courteous, Kind, and duty to others outside of our own political party. And live that example ourselves. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BobWhite, there's no injury here, eh? BSA policy only requires notifying the SE in the event of an injury, not every time an incident of bullyin' or a kids' tussle happens. DonHall, welcome to the rough part of bein' a SM! One thing's for certain, the boys gave yeh a vote of confidence by telling you. Now they're all watchin' to see if you really care. Your instincts are right, eh? If it's comin' to light now, it's been goin' on a while, and you should treat it that way. As a SM, your duty is first to keep all of the boys safe and happy, and bullyin' just ain't compatible with that. BobWhite's right, this one jumps the youth leadership, and yeh have to respond as adults, promptly and firmly. Yes, you need to meet with the boy. Yes, you have to meet with his parents. Never do that by phone, eh? Tough news has to be delivered in person. Yes, you need the Committee Chair or another adult to be there. Yes, you have to suspend the boy at a minimum, for a fair stretch. Yes, there will be tears and excuses. Yes, more than likely, yeh will even lose him, by your choice or his family's. Yes, that's OK. Yes, yeh have to let the parents of the boys who were bullied know, and let them know you're dealing with it, and let them know how proud you are of their sons for coming forward. And yes, after all of that, whether the boy makes his amends and comes back or moves on, your program will be stronger for it. Because the scouts in telling you were silently asking a question. "Do you care about us?" And you answered in the only way they trust - with your actions, not just your words. And the parents know you can be trusted. Your troop doesn't need a formal discipline policy. It just needs a man of courage who cares about his boys and his program. You talk with your committee chair, you do what talkin' with the boys you have to do to make sure you've got all the information, and you set up your meetings. If in the end you decide that it's best the boy be removed from the unit, yeh work that with your committee chair for committee approval. Beavah

Yah, amethyst, we get the drift, eh? Lots of other parents in your unit don't meet your standard of parenting or scouting. As we've said, in this matter the BSA's guidance and us folks in internet land agree with you. But there's a bigger question. The bigger question is what is appropriate, kind, courteous, etc. for you to do as a new leader and a brand new member of this unit? Do you want to be "that person" who comes in tellin' all the other families that they're doin' things wrong? Most places, that isn't goin' to win you any friends, or make you effective as a leader. On reflection, it's probably not in keepin' with the Scout Law. My advice is that you aren't allowed to criticize until you've been around long enough that you have recognized and praised all of the good things that your pack is doing for kids. Only when you've seen the good in people can you even begin to offer effective advice. In the meantime, you can encourage all of your Tigers to be in full uniform and set the example with smiles. Beavah

Yah, JillKB, no such policy. Just another poorly informed trainer. The cycling MB requirement requires the boy to make a report of each of the rides, including date, route, things seen, etc. I think if the boy submitted a good report and was able to talk through it, a counselor might accept that for some of the shorter rides. Problem with "family rides" (yah, and "troop rides" too!) is that boys can be relyin' on others rather than actually fulfilling the expectations themselves. So if dad leads all the time in traffic, all that knowing and practicing the traffic laws and bicycle safety that the boy is supposed to be doin' gets shortchanged. So can the navigation and bike repairs. So I expect most cycling MBC's would want to supervise or participate in at least a few of those rides. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... what is it with Texas? Very hard to judge da situation by remote, T129. If I'm gettin' this right, a female parent was having a consensual wrestling match with a boy-scout-aged boy. The female parent is not a leader, but the boy does know her well. Yah, that has all kinds of "issues", dependin' on who the woman is. If she's a young mom who wrestled in college showin' the lad a few moves, that's one thing. But a full-out match is a bit different, eh? We don't know the female leader either, eh? Is she one to overreact? Is there prior "history" between the two women (sounds like it...). Did she just restrain the first parent, or did they start goin' at it? All are things to be considered, eh? However, there is an underlyin' principle here which should be the committee's starting point. You start by trusting and supporting your registered leaders. You chose those adults as leaders for a reason, eh? In part, to ensure the safety of kids; in part, because they contribute a lot to the program. Therefore, to do the best for the program, you start by supportin' the leaders. Otherwise you won't have any. If a registered leader tells you they had to restrain a parent's physical behavior with someone else's kid, at a minimum that parent doesn't go anywhere near boys in the troop until it gets sorted out. Anything else is simply negligent. If someone's parent calls law enforcement on one of your adult leaders, yeh have to take that seriously, too. So yeh might have to suspend the ASM as well, until yeh get things sorted out. And yah, there's a good chance that at least one of those conditions is going to be permanent, unless somethin' you find out changes the character of the thing in a big way. But yeh can't not take it seriously. Or, more properly, the SM/CC/COR have to take it seriously. As an ASM, yeh might be asked for input, or not. I don't see it likely that your unit gets out of this without either the parent or the pair of ASMs being gone, most likely the former. But it's somethin' your SM/CC will want to coordinate with the COR, IH, UC, and DE. Beavah

Yah, BobWhite repeats da official line, which is contained in SSS's first link from scouting.org, eh? All scouting uniforms are meant to be worn as a whole according to the Insignia Guide. That having been said, I'd relax a bit amethyst. First, it's worth noting that Mike Walton is just another volunteer scouter expressing his personal opinion in SSS second link. Me thinks he doth protest too much, and perpetuates some bad scoutin' myths. The camo the lads wear isn't typically military camo, it's hunting camo. Round our neck of the woods, there are a lot of families who hunt, eh? Families who hunt typically buy outdoor clothing in camo patterns. Fact is, it's good-quality outdoor wear, and usually reasonably priced. Yeh aren't going to get folks to buy a second non-camo winter coat or pants for scouting. Not when a Scout is Thrifty, and not when a lot of families can't afford that kind of duplication of gear. Besides, the lads think it's cool, and it's great for capture-the-flag. Now if you're talkin' indoor dress-wear for ceremonies and such, then I agree with you. Looks a lot better to have boys in full uniform if your unit can work to make it happen. If your unit values that, you should work toward it. However, if you're talkin' active-wear or outdoor-wear, the cub uniform ain't that great. If your unit values those things, they might be allowing options. We've made progress on the Boy Scout uniform which your webelos can wear, though. The new uniform parts are a bit more outdoor functional, at least for warm climates. A lot of da "shirts only" uniforming was happening because the old Boy Scout uniform pants were so awful. Cub uniforms haven't caught up yet, so that might be part of what's goin' on. In any event, as a Tiger leader, your role is to learn. There's quite a lot to learn about cub scouting and scouting in general, eh? File this one away, and keep learning and being open to your unit's approach to things. There's an old rule of courtesy: yeh can't criticize a group until you've first found all the things for which they should be praised. Beavah

Yah, I'd be happy with any move toward a responsible energy policy, eh? There's a wonderful synergy here. Workin' to reduce global warming is also going to work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which in turn starves bad actors like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. Improves our national security. Yep, that's goin' to take investment, and that means taxes. Proper taxes, eh? Taxing the thing you want to reduce (pollution and energy use) instead of somethin' yeh want to increase (income). I'm willing to pay to make the U.S. more independent and secure. I'm even willing to pay to try to preserve the glaciers I visited as a youth so my great-grandkids can enjoy 'em as I did. Guess I'm an old conservative coot. Far better than paying to bail out auto execs. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I reckon we've gone from da sublime to the ridiculous, eh? Still, it is incumbent upon us as adults to demonstrate to the lads how to pursue an issue respectfully, eh? Yeh should take pains to conduct yourselves with the utmost kindness, respect, and courtesy, as an example to your son. Be ready to listen, too. Some of da things you mention, like "taking the I out" aren't bad techniques to emphasize to a lad that others are supposed to be doing the work while he leads and directs. Some of da other things you mention, like an estimate of man hours, are required. Still others, like proper proofreading, are rightly expected. As you describe son #1's proposal, odds are it would not have been approved in most districts. As NeilLup suggests, it's really hard to give advice by remote, not knowin' who da players are. But here are some thoughts, if you've already exhausted having the firm sit-down with this gentleman himself and the CC. 1) This should not be dad's fight, or the SM's fight. Again, this is the district inappropriately rejecting a proper project submission which has been approved by the unit committee. It's da CC's job to pursue this on behalf of the unit. That has the added advantage of not making it a "pushy parent" issue in anyone's eyes. Advancement folks deal with pushy parents constantly, eh? There's a presumption of impropriety and annoyance that won't be there if the matter is pursed by the CC. 2) The CC's job is to get the boy's project rolling. That can be with a sit-down with the DE, Program Director, or SE as NeilLup suggests, or through the full district advancement committee, or through a sit-down with the district chair, or through a formal written challenge to the council advancement committee. Whatever seems best in your situation. At the same time, da CC should inform your COR. 3) The role of the COR is to fix the issue permanently at the district. COR can do that with a conversation with the district chair, first, then conversations with the council advancement chair, etc. Yah, and if necessary by showin' up with some other COR's at the next district committee meeting and introducing a motion for the immediate removal of the district advancement chair. COR can also inform da council and the individual that your "Eagle Advisor" is no longer a registered adult leader with your troop. 4) The SM's task is to find a role for the boy to play in the process. Writin' up his experience. Printing up copies of his first draft and every subsequent revision into a big binder. Prepping the lad to go meet with the COR, perhaps, or with the Council Advancement Chair or SE. The boy is going to learn more, and be more proud, if he plays an active role in the resolution. It'll be a much poorer experience if adults completely "take over". That's not to say adults shouldn't be involved at this point, eh? But they shouldn't cut the lad out. If he's an honor student, well spoken, and up to it, he should be taken to meet with folks to present his own case (after da adults do a little setup behind the scenes). Good luck with it. Beavah

For those wonderin', my inflation calculator says that $1 in 1911 would be $22 now. Of course, if a lad deposited only $22 in a bank, in less than a year da account maintenance fees would reduce it to zero. B

However...If the committee chair wants to extend that safety precaution to all of the unit's activities then your correct response is "Okay". Provided that position is voted on by the committee to establish it as a policy. The CC cannot establish policy on her own. In terms of what's required, you have it right, eh? Only coed overnight activities require adult leaders of different genders. In terms of what's prudent, I reckon that's just fine, eh? It's really hard to make a case for needin' mixed-gender leadership for a day trip. In their non-scouting life, girls routinely attend meetings and classes, go to sports practice, etc. with only one male adult present, eh? Very difficult to make a negligence argument when it's common practice even among professional educators. Only thing I can imagine is if you were doin' a challengin' day-trip activity and a girl got injured, it might seem awkward for a male leader to do the physical exam as part of first aid? But honestly, da EMT's who arrive are likely to be guys. So's the ER doc. I just don't see it being an issue. Best practice and da G2SS are in perfect alignment here, there's no need to add additional requirements. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, OK, so what happens if we continue with this socializing risk experiment Bush started and the Democrats now have bought into? If we were to bail out the auto industry in some form against all rational sense, what should we at least be demanding as terms? B

Yah, Lisa'bob, I think that 3 million jobs figure is a lobbyist number, eh? Seems like those lobbying for the bailout were talkin' 2 million, and that was bogus too. Total number employed directly by all the big 3 in the U.S. is only about 250K. Even with parts suppliers and truck drivers, it's hard to see a 10 times total positions impact without gettin' really, really "creative". Yep, folks will move out of Michigan. That's the way of things, eh? Just like folks moved out of Western PA when the oil dried up. They'll eventually move back when half the rest of the country runs out of water. Personally, I think if any auto bailout passes at all (includin' that dumb $25 billion they already got!), the entire Michigan congressional delegation should be consigned to Siberia in terms of committee appointments. For years those nitwits, both Democrat and Republican, have blocked every effort at makin' that industry rational. Beavah Beavah

Yah, capitalism is based on a notion that young, hungry, innovative businesses will continuously replace old, complacent, decaying businesses, eh? It's that notion that has brought us prosperity and economic strength. The Detroit automakers are da picture postcard of old, complacent, decaying businesses, eh? Apple, when it's doin' well, is innovating so they're ready for the down cycle. Ford when it was doing well was slashing its engineering and design staff for lavish union contracts, exec bonuses, and quarterly earnings jiggering. Now they're hittin' the down cycle and they're shocked. It's positively scary how many scuzzballs are linin' up at the public bailout trough. There's finance companies deliberately restructuring as banks in record time just to snarf up tax collars. When we do this nonsense, we just guarantee worse behavior and more long-term pain. If we'd let Chrysler fail way back when, we've had two stronger, more responsible American manufacturers and a more thoughtful UAW. That old bailout led us to this one, eh? Now we'll lose at least two of the three. I'm with OGE. No, no, no, no, no! B

Yah, it's a norm in many countries that each troop owns it's own scout hut, eh? Often they do that in part through youth programming dollars from the government. I reckon I've known half a dozen or so units that have exclusive use of a building, maybe a few more. Some have been donations to the CO which the CO then turfed to the troop; I know one barn that was a bequest to a troop. B

Yah, your son is just fine submitting his project to the district, eh? That's what's supposed to happen as soon as he has all of da signatures. Now, your husband and the CC need to sit down and talk about how they want Committee approval of an Eagle Scout project to be handled in the future. I don't much care for a CC acting solo, I think it's better for the boys and better for the unit if a few adults contribute and have input, eh? The boy gets better feedback, and it prevents any CC or "Eagle Advisor" settin' himself up as King. As an example, yeh might designate a few committee members as bein' the regular review board for projects. Yeh can put one of your old "Eagle Advisors" on it so long as he can be kept under control by the rest of the group. Treat it like a BOR, in that if the group says "no" they must give timely and written feedback to the boy on what to revise and resubmit. Or some other mechanism eh? It's your troop's committee, you know best how they operate. Once a project gets committee approval (which should come after beneficiary and SM approval), it goes straight to district for immediate review and approval. But it's your troop committee's job, eh? There's no "Eagle Advisor" adult leadership role or position in da BSA. The committee needs to take back its turf. Give the men a plaque and thank 'em for their service. Beavah

Yah, I've seen all kinds of variants, eh? Our district sends members of the district advancement committee out to meet with boys. General practice in a lot of troops is to do the troop committee review at the same time, with the district rep. present as a sort of pre-project BOR. Committees and district reps keep each other in line . Same group often meets after the project for EBOR; keeps down the need for others to get up to speed and avoids surprises. Not required, though. Seen plenty of district reps. meet with boy and SM/advisor individually after committee approval. We do like it to be a personal meeting, though, not just an approval-by-mail. Let's see, for SM approval I've seen: * SM does it. * Designated ASM or "eagle coach" does it. For Committee approval I've seen: * Whole Committee reviews & approves. * Subcommittee reviews & approves. * BOR-style committee approves. * CC and/or AC approve. For district approval I've seen: * Whole district advancement committee reviews & approves (slow). * Subcommittee reviews & approves, BOR style. * DAC approves everything personally. * Individual district advancement committee reps. review and approve. Some districts handle it with personal meetings, some just by lookin' over the paperwork. Beavah

Yah, wait a minute. I thought this fellow was your DAC or a member of the district advancement committee assigned to review projects? If he's just an in-troop advisor, then the SM or CC should just replace him, eh? Have the boy, the SM, or the CC take the project proposal to the DAC themselves. An in-troop Eagle advisor should help coach a lad in place of the SM, but only up to the point where the SM and Committee approve the project, eh? Once the Committee approves, it should go straight to the district for their (rapid) signoff. Yah, if this guy is really an in-troop advisor, he works on behalf of da troop committee. Just thank him for his past services, give him a plaque, and move on. Beavah