Beavah

Hiya Spinnaker, Deep breaths! Remember, this is mostly your son's game to play, so while it's OK to be mad at the call, it's still your job to stay in the stands and cheer for your son at the moment. First, recognize that there are errors here on both sides. Your son is pushin' the time limits and did a half-a**ed job with the Application. Perhaps from not understanding, but also from not reading the directions. Then he may have inadvertently blown off a meeting where he was expected. Recognize that if he's a recent member of the troop, the folks in the troop don't know him that well, so being late with stuff on top of some behavioral issues is going to make people really question his readiness for Eagle. You don't mention exactly what the behavioral issues were, but I think it's fair to hold an 18 year old Eagle Scout to a higher standard than other boys (like Mr. G's son) who are younger. All that having been said, there seems to be a bunch of confusion about process and expectations. From afar, I can't tell the source. Did the troop not communicate or coach your son well? Did your son not understand the expectations on him or blow them off a bit? Are you getting all your information filtered through your son (we all know how much teenagers share details with their parents and are very objective about 'em, eh? )? Anyway, here's the steps to proceed. The SM has signed. The CC is supposed to sign on behalf of the unit committee but has not. 1. Since the SM endorsed your son's application, your son should call the SM and meet with him and find out what's up, and what his/her advice is on how to proceed. The SM may already be taking some measures on your son's behalf. 2. If the SM is staying out of it for some reason, your son should call the CC and request a meeting of the full unit committee to hear his appeal, or find out if that "BOR" reflected the unit committee's decision. If the latter, he should request a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the decision. 3. Your son should call the district advancement chair and request an Eagle BOR time slot. If his application does not have the CC's signature, he should let the DAC know (in advance!) that he is coming with the SM's endorsement but not the unit committee's. The DAC will schedule a BOR for him, and the BOR will consider the recommendation letters from your son's references, the SM's position, and the unit committee's position and make their decision. All of this should be done in a cordial, polite, respectful, and friendly manner befitting the behavior of an Eagle Scout and his family. Hope dat helps, eh? Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Time for a refresher here. Blue cards are not a requirement. There is zero obligation to use them. Many summer camps don't. Some "Merit Badge Universities" don't. Many troops don't. They're a convenience item for the boys who want to use them, just like scout book signoff pages (or da cute little signoff card that they sell separate from the book). Point is, the BSA relies on the adult leaders in the unit for all of advancement up through Eagle. What the unit says the kid's got, the kid's got. It's da unit's program. They're the ones teachin' the kids, they're the ones responsible for their safety, they're the ones decidin' when kids get awards. As it should be. Beavah

I disagree with your contention that it is OK to steal and murder. These are moral standards that are easily derived from either absolute or relativistic viewpoints. Sure, dat's true of anything, eh? Yeh can derive opposition to homosexuality from relativistic viewpoints as well. Fact is, yeh can derive anything you want from relativistic viewpoints. Stealing can be bad, for example, unless it's infrequent. Infrequent stealing doesn't generate much societal impact, but does increase your own success and chance for survival. Institutionalized theft, like that by a petty lord or corrupt government, can also be justified. And those are just da negatives, eh? Now yeh gotta generate the positives. What does a better job of inspiring Generosity - absolute viewpoints or relative ones? How about heroic self-sacrifice? Seems like most of da heroes and saints were pretty absolute in their views of right and wrong, eh? Moral relativism, like Marxist-Leninism, rabid Fundamentalism, Fascism, etc. is just another dumb idea. It may have left the station, but it's runnin' off the rails just like the rest of the dumb ideas. Beavah

(duplicate deleted)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I don't buy the "implicitly endorsing a policy of prejudice" bit. Buying a banana doesn't implicitly endorse poor labor practices in Latin America. It's just buying a banana. Being a U.S. citizen doesn't implicitly endorse every U.S. government policy or screwup. Same with da BSA. And I think Joni's correspondent is simply foolish if he thinks that BSA policy has much of an impact on kids perceptions. Kids who are struggling with issues are going to turn to adults with whom they have long term supportive relationships. Ain't nothing better than Scouting in that regard, outside of family and maybe church. Coaches, teachers, etc. are mostly one-year-wonders in a boy's life. I've had lots of conversations with kids who have approached me with hard issues over the years. So has every scouter who's worth a darn. BSA policy never stopped 'em, nor did I need a rainbow knot to invite 'em. All da prattle about "organizational prejudice" is just silly adult nonsense. Kids know that relationships are personal, and are just as sophisticated at distinguishin' organization from individual. Probably better at it in fact, because they're always put in organizations - from family to school to scouts - where they disagree with some things but can't change the "policy." Beavah

Don't know about that. Most women scouters that I know have a hard time letting go and letting boys be boys. When fathers interfere, they are usually trying to skirt the rules for advancement or permission slip deadlines. Mothers are the ones who rush to their child's defense when he has broken a rule and has the explanation of why the rule was broken and how it is unfair to "punish" their child. :) Yah, GW, those ain't Scouts or Scouters at all, eh? Those are just helicoper mommies and daddies.

Don't know about that. What I do know is that our district Eagle Boards scrutinze the big book of blue cards. Considering that advancement data at the council is never up to date, depending on them to provide verification of anything is absurd. Yah, well there's always some "unique" district out there somewhere, eh? GW, da official certification comes from the Council Registrar on the Eagle Scout application, based on the council and ScoutNet records. No provision that I know of for the EBOR to sign for the council registrar, and no provision that I know of for an EBOR to overrule the council registrar based on a boy having laundered his blue cards or fed them to Rover. Not sure why any district would adopt this arcane paperwork bit. Goodness knows there's enough paperwork for the poor lad in the Eagle process anyways. I can't see how addin' yet another paper hoop improves our achievement of the Aims. Me, I'd be pullin' the district chair and the DAC aside for a private "Come to Beavah" meetin' if they were doin' all that . I can think of a half dozen unfilled volunteer spots in our districts and council that could make use of their fastidiousness without 'em gumming up the youth program. But that's just MHO. If your district can justify how what they're doin' is a real service to the boys and the units, more power to 'em. Beavah

I withheld the fishing MB to some of the Scouts who I know did not even take the MB at summer camp. The MBC wasn't really sure who came and went to his classes all week and just signed a bunch of blank blue cards filling in everything himself. I asked the boys (after I had received their blue cards from the MBC) if they took the class and they stated no. Same went for the canoeing one year. The Scout did not pass the swimming skills so couldn't even take the MB but got a signed off card. Ah, yes. Da real world

I'd say that should be well within the ability/maturity level of da ages you describe. Only you can be a judge of their Scouting skills (navigation, LNT, backpacking ability, first aid skill, judgment). Close the communication loop; make sure their plans are good and there's a plan for meet-up and "if bad happens". Quietly "pad" their arrival time a few hours so you give 'em some miscalculation time. Then if you're comfortable, go for it. The payoff is about ten times what it is for an "adults present" campout. One troop I work with, independent patrol hikin' and overnights are pretty common, even without "all old boys". Beavah

Yah, gwd, but yeh missed the tell-all. How much of Scoutin' is about you, vs. how much is about da kids. The Woman- or Man-Scout, it's about them. Dat's the reason for the adornment/"adult advancement", the wantin' to prove themselves in a man's world, the aggressive, and the reason why district service is more important, eh? Women scouters have talent and skills and love working with the kids to help them grow. They talk about kids all the time, and therefore prefer unit level service. They don't have any need to prove themselves in the woods; they are comfortable with their own abilities and talents as women in an outdoor program. Yeh can usually tell da difference in less than 5 minutes.

I would of course have a word with the District or Council Advancement chair about the terrible job that Eamonn guy was doing and explain what happened to Tim. Da world is a complicated place. I'd probably do almost exactly as Eamonn suggests for a summer camp badge. But it gets more complicated with a parent MBC in da troop, eh? What's the parent's reaction likely to be to the SM calling the DAC and reportin' him as a lousy counselor? How likely is it that the boy will remain in the program if dad is "fired"? How much will junior "cover up" for dad in a personal conversation? Do yeh really want to be in a position of encouraging a son to "tell on his parent" for not doing all the requirements? Sometimes it might be best just to have a simple, impersonal rule like no one-on-one MBC'ing within your own family, or a quick double-check on skills, eh? (if not avoidin' parent MBC's altogether ). Beavah

Complying with the "no kids in the back of truck" policy, you could simply not allow it in your truck, but supporting it might be that you wouldn't allow it in your truck AND would discourage it from others in your unit, at council events and so forth. you might even emphasize it if you were conducting training somewhere. Nah, I'd think about it differently myself, Gonzo. I'd say "complying" with the BSA no paintball rule means that you would not allow it in your troop and would discourage others in training and other units. But you might very well take your kids and their friends and go play paintball on Saturday. Supporting the policy means you wouldn't take your kids to go play paintball and would discourage other parents from doin' so on their own time, because yeh really do think it's dangerous or leads to Columbine shootouts or somesuch. Same with da truck, eh? Comply means what you said. Support means you wouldn't do it on your own at a non-Scouting event, and might even stop a stranger to say "What are you thinking?" I'd guess we'd all prefer organizations where we really supported everything. But we accept some things where we just comply because the majority we support, and the rest we can live with or even learn from. Beavah

Yah, there are definitely WomanScouts, prairie. Fairly easy to spot 'em. Fully adorned like the ManScout. Often fairly "drill sergeant" in their demeanor... da aggressive female who is provin' herself in a man's world. Frequently found on district staff but occasionally as female SM's, though that's more rare. My guess is 30-70% of WB's are ManScouts, dependin' on your area. It often attracts da wannabe Eagles who never made it as a kid. I'd say it's a slightly better predictor than the knot-infested. Singfests and silliness are less predictive, as GoldWinger points out. Especially at the cub and NSP boy scout level, it's good to have adults who are zany. By age 13, though, it's as likely to be "those geezers are gay, and I don't want to be here with them acting like little kids all da time." Teens want to be seen and treated as grown-ups. The big teller on ManScout is whether the stuff is about the kids, or about them. Some folks wear knots or beads because it's about the kids - a program reinforcement. Some do it because it's about them. The latter are da ManScouts. Hard thing is that all ManScouts will claim it's about the kids. But yeh can usually tell by how much they talk about themselves, aka using their knots or beads as "conversation starters." If 90% of their conversation isn't about children or how the program affects kids, they're a ManScout. Well, maybe 80% as long as da other 20% is about outdoor gear (in general, not their own gear) . Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Aquila, what's your role in this troop? One of da things we have to model as adults is when somethin' properly is between two individuals and not our responsibility. I'd suggest that if yeh aren't the troop advancement chair or the CC, this is one of those times, eh? It's hard if you're not in one of those positions to know the real "history." There might well have been history within this troop of problems with parent MBCs, or even problems with this parent MBC. Dat's fairly common, eh? While it's easy to say "well, then the MBC should just have been removed from the position," most folks are reluctant to go file a complaint with the DAC and create all dat drama. Lots of times, they might more gently say "Hey, from now on, we want you to have another scout or troop adult present if you're counseling your own son." Da SM has to sign off on the MB before the scout begins. It may well be that the SM said "you should do it with Mr. Jones and not with your mom" or said "you can do it with your mom only if someone else takes it with you, so it doesn't look like you're gettin' it easy." In terms of official answers, there are two: 1. The responsibility for merit badges shall rest with the merit badge counselor approved by the local council and district advancement committee... The merit badge counselor shall prepare and qualify youth members. (R&R X c13) 2. I (the SM/CC/TAC) certify that the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America. (Advancement Report Form) So common sense suggests that the merit badge counselor is the one with primary responsibility, but that doesn't mean that the unit leadership can't check up on things now and then. And if da boy really did earn the badge, where's the harm? The kid should be dyin' to talk about what he knows and can do! I'd expect a kid who just finished Lifesaving MB or Cooking MB or whatever to be delighted to talk about it and show off his skills. Ain't nuthin' but positive reinforcement for his achievement unless there's somethin' amiss. Beavah

Yah, I'm with Eagledad. What's your attendance like? With only nine boys, I'd guess that attendance on any given event would be around 6 boys. That's the perfect size for a patrol! Even a full 9 is just fine. Two patrols of 3 (or less if attendance is lower or is uneven) guarantees that Patrol Method will frequently "collapse" or fall apart on events. So yeh wouldn't be gettin' the real benefit anyways. I'd keep things together for now. Once you get a bit bigger, say 14-16 boys or so, then there's three different ways to go and a whole bunch of permutations of those: 1) Take two most "ready to lead" older boys as PL's and have 'em form teams of friends of various ages (similar to your race/pick alternates idea). This gives you "vertical" or "mixed age" patrols - great for patrol competition and havin' "natural" experienced older boy leaders. 2) Keep all the older boys in one patrol and add a second patrol of New Scouts. This will gradually create "horizontal" patrols of same-age friends. Makes running "classes" for boys at about the same level easier. 3) Just let the kids pick. And if it doesn't work, let 'em pick again. This often leads to same-age patrols and sometimes gets cliquey. But they're with who they want to be with, eh? And that can teach a lot about community, too.

Yah, here's where I'd draw the line, jhubb. Ask two sets of questions: First: What are your adult leaders' skills? What are your adult leaders' capacity for growth and time available for outside trainin' and OTJ learning? Same sort of questions for the boys - what's their capacity for growth and ability to be flexible and sacrifice? Second: How much accommodation is needed? Meet with the parents & the boy (and docs and teachers and den leaders and whoever). Lookin' at all the troop activities for last year, how much more effort or program sacrifice would be required to make sure this lad had a good experience? So on one side of the equation is your capacity, as bluntly and honestly as you can state it (rounding slightly down). On the other side is the boy's need, as accurately and honestly as you can state it (rounding slightly up). If they don't at least balance, that's the line. It's just not fair to take a boy into a program if you don't have a good shot of makin' it work. Not fair to the boy. Not fair to the other boys. Not fair to the adults. To be considerin' it, your program should be hummin' along pretty well, both boys and adults. That's an indication that you actually have the excess capacity to give. It might help a bit to add capacity (like makin' a parent come along), but don't overestimate that - parents need trainin' and help, too. Most first year parents it's a big effort to get 'em plugged into understandin' Boy Scouting on their own. Besides, in the end yeh want the boy to be part of things with the other boys, not on a family campout with dad. So in da case you mention, it sounds like yeh might be just fine with the first lad (?). But then you have to reduce your available capacity in the first part of the equation. So yeh might not have what it takes for the second. Dat's just honest. Beavah

OGO (and others) - What do yeh feel the anonymous paper report would gain over a Roses & Thorns type discussion in person? Or a SM discussion with da boys in a patrol in the normal course of business?

Where the people that trained you direct contact leaders for any length of time? Yah, so here's where I think LongHaul's point comes in, eh? Not to pick on click23 at all, mind you. But click thinks it's important that his trainers had real experience. A UC is a trainer for a unit. Shouldn't da UC also have real experience? Would we want someone who had been trained by real NRA-certified instructors and gun owners but never actually fired a gun themselves to be training & supervisin' firearm usage? Not that scoutin' is exactly the same - it's actually more complicated! I'm mostly with Eamonn. I think that for the most part in most places, the Commissioner Corps is broken. It's been effectively replaced by da Professional Staff and check-box management techniques. Warm bodies are used to "fill" commissioner positions, who either don't have hands-on experience in a unit or only have long-term contact with one unit and want everyone else to do it "their way." Yah, sure, we create bubbles here and there in some districts. And there are a few good individual commissioners left in other districts. But overall, it ain't workin' that great. Beavah

Ooh, ooh! I get to beat da moderators to a book quote! "Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants". (G2SS, bold from the original text). I think jhubb has the right of it. Get a fellow smoker to do a one-on-one, friendly explanation of da policy. If that doesn't work, quietly arm da boys with squirtguns and super soakers. Beavah

Yah, I think Longhaul was tryin' to get a sense of what a Commissioner who had not spent a lot of time as a Direct Contact unit leader thought about Quality. In other words, somebody who really has only learned the definitions from da training rather than from direct personal experience. So far only us folks with a lot of unit service time have jumped in to hijack it, eh? I was goin' to as well, but thought I'd best not otherwise nobody he's lookin' for would feel comfortable enough to respond. B

As so many of us have said over and over, it's all about the kids. Nah, not at those levels Not to worry, Scouter&mom. The end result is that the WOSM Secretary General got fired, just the way the U.S. demanded. While we certainly didn't make many friends by the way we handled it, we got what we wanted at least for the short term. Expect the BSA to reinstate most funding and to remain a WOSM member, and expect international activities to go on as planned. Just make sure that the adults participatin' are prepared to answer a few questions from their counterparts Beavah

So the BOR is actually either agreeing with the SMs assessment or disagreeing with the SMs assessment. Boy gets caught in the middle. Yah, well most of da time a SM and the committee should be on the same page, eh? Common vision and all that. In such cases I've known SMs who sent kids along to a BOR with a quiet aside that he thought the boy shouldn't pass. He needed somebody to play "bad cop" so he could get through to the boy, bein' coach and mentor. Other times a boy can just slip by, especially in bigger troops. "Joey, do you remember the steps to CPR?" "No, not really". "Who signed you off? We can't read the initials." "My grandma, but I didn't really do it." Becomes a good learnin' experience for both the boy and the SM. Only times it can be a bit tense is if da SM and the committee don't share a common vision, eh? So the SM is signing when the committee wants a higher standard (or vice versa). In that case, the BOR results become a good incentive for gettin' together to get the vision and expectations straight (or for findin' a new SM). I'm of the mind that the Board should pass (or not pass) the scout based on the SM's position, and then deal with the adult conversation on standards separately. But it is their call. Beavah

The arguments can be over anything...if one boy expresses an interest in a football team, one of the rivals will jump in with comments about how bad the team is and off it goes. What is so disturbing is the intensity with which the arguments escalate until boys are standing nose to nose with the disagreement shifting from the original topic to personal insults aimed at each other. It got so bad at the last troop meeting that one boy began to insult the parentage of the other Yah, this sounds like Merlyn and Ed, eh? Kidding aside, this just seems like kid stuff but without adequate adult guidance. And probably a troop needing a more active program to wear them all out and give 'em something different to talk about. At least instead of football teams it could be S'mores vs. Dutch oven apple crisp Problem is, NWS, this is the SM's game, eh? You've done what you can do by alertin' him to your and your son's concern. Maybe on the side you can encourage some of da younger leaders to start steppin' up and runnin' activities, since the old crew seems ready to retire. Beavah

Wonder what yeh all think. I had a Camp Director tell me once that a lot of da Man Scouts were former boy scouts who never made Eagle. So as adults, they're out pursuin' Adult Advancement rather than workin' the program to help kids advance. He put a lot of us Woodbadgers in dat category. Da shoe fits uncomfortably well (ticket=project, etc.). B

To me this is a major logical flaw to the policy. DADT is the practical (and unavoidable) outcome of the policy. I think the top brass is smart enough to realize this and also to realize there is no use in worrying about something they can't control. Nah, nuthin' illogical at all. And of course that's what the top brass realizes. BSA has only taken action when things have become a public issue.