Beavah

If socuters aren't supposed to work on merit badges at troop meetings then what is the purose of troop meeting if it is not a conduit for advancement? Fun. Practice youth leadership (including youth-run instruction). Chances for adult association. Planning in patrols for upcoming events. Opportunities to build patrol spirit. Getting outdoors (yeh don't really have meetings indoors all year, do yeh? ) Havin' a contest. More fun. etc. etc. Now, along the way there are opportunities to learn stuff, and the wise PL or ASM will look over shoulders while they're planning meals for the weekend campout (got that signoff...), or doin' the Patrol Yell (got that signoff...) or winning the splinting contest (got that signoff...). Yah, but it's about the fun and fellowship and learnin' and growin', eh? Advancement is just a (small) part of it. 16 hours/month of scouting and no advancement? When are they supposed to work on scouting stuff? Hmmm.... Repeat after me.... "Advancement is only 1/8 of Scouting." It's just one method out of eight. If yeh work on advancement all the time, when are they supposed to work on all the rest of scouting stuff? O'course, workin' with a MB counselor wouldn't happen at a meeting and might not happen on an outing either. It'll happen as each boy meets with a MBC. Presto, more time! But on those campin' trips, I bet they get to do fun stuff like: All the requirements for campin' MB... just by havin' fun! Hang out at a campfire tellin' personal stories (Communications requirement 1) Go bike riding (great start on Cycling MB) Participate in a mock rescue (Emergency Preparedness, First Aid requirements) Get introduced to a local environmental issue (Environmental Science, possible Eagle Project...) Take some cool hikes (Hiking MB) Go swimming, practice rescues (Swimming, Lifesaving MBs) Visit an airport (Aviation MB) Visit a military base (Cit. Nation MB) etc. etc. Advancement's the product of an active program, eh? It ain't the cause or the purpose. Yeh need to take 6 months off and not do any official work on advancement . Force everybody to learn the rest of da program. You'll find your kids and your adults will like scoutin' a lot more if yeh do that. Beavah

Yah, donomiser, it's really hard to figure out what the issue is here, eh? Most places, the SM or an ASM/Eagle Advisor comes with the boy to an EBOR, introduces him, and then sits in on the board. Sorta a friendly face to make it a bit less intimidatin', also a friendly adult who can step in to clarify a point or act on the lad's behalf in the rare event of an obnoxious or out-of-control board. Me, I've always thought it polite to ask the SM for comments after the boy has left the room and before deliberation begins. Sounds like there's some weird adult dynamic goin' on between ASMs, the UC, and the SM. Just out with it, man! There's plenty of folks here who have "seen it all". You won't surprise any of us, and it's anonymous, eh? Or yeh can personal message whoever yeh like with more details in private. Beavah

Yah, this doesn't need to get hugely formal most of the time, eh? No reason why two people can't be there and observe. Unit Commissioners (who aren't relatives) are permitted to sit on an EBOR as a ("voting") member. Yes, it is up to the EBOR chair to set the ground rules for the review, and who is invited to observe (just to keep it sane for the boy). It's up to the SM to designate who speaks on his/her behalf if there's an interview to give a reference. Beavah

At one of our Camporee's we were told by the executive, that we are not allowed to have a bus, since it was aganst BSA Inc., policy. Yah, I just love it when people quote fake policy, eh? Especially when all it does is hurt program. Gets my dander up right good. Anybody else heard of such nonsense? School bus is a darn sight safer way to travel than automobile. Plus, a well-decorated scout bus makes a fine rovin' advertisement for an exciting program. Beavah

In a previous thread, John-in-KC gives some spot-on advice for folks to consider when lookin' at starting a new troop. Seems like a worthy enough topic to dedicate a thread to, eh? Hopefully, we're not shrinkin' everywhere. So, first an open invitation to anybody who has started a new troop from scratch to share your experiences, insights, and dos-and-don'ts. Then an invitation to anybody who is thinkin' about goin' the new troop route to ask questions or share their plans for comment. Beavah

Yah, elizdaddio, this happens occasionally, eh? Sometimes a troop with a reasonable or strong program has a lot of leader turnover, and goes "dormant." Usually these inactive programs don't stay around too long; either they heat back up or they die. I'm wonderin' who your "primary" leaders are and what they're like? (SM, key ASMs). Inactive programs usually have very reluctant leaders who would be happy to pass the baton to anybody else willin' to give it a go. That is by far the first choice. Get some of those other interested parents and choose lots for SM, sign up 'em all as ASMs, and get crackin'. I expect the only reason current leadership says "no" is because they feel they have to go and don't want to. You can also turn to the COR to try to "goose" a transition along, eh? But if for some reason you can't finesse a transition because a few egos are highly invested in an inactive program, then you can always fall back to "start a new troop," recognizin' it will kill the old one. If you've already ID'd a CO that will be supportive and active, next step is to identify some seed money/gear, and then yeh might make a go of it. It's hard startin' from scratch, though. Yeh need to try to find at least one "old hand" to help out, and a successful "partner troop" to really make a good go of it. I'd look to tryin' to transition your current troop as a first step. Beavah

I think it would be just fine for ship members to drive themselves, eh? Remember, over 16 can drive for Venturing events, with appropriate permissions. I think it's also a fine thing to ask the 2nd leader if she is willing to drive. The worst she can say is "no." Givin' people an opportunity to do a good deed is a good deed. Some units borrow a bigger vehicle. You can also rent bigger vehicles, and add to da cost of the trip. When this happens, one troop in our area uses da record of past driving by parents. Boys whose parents have done the least amount of driving in the last year are dropped from the trip until the number of kids matches the number of vehicles. They almost never have to "really" do it. Given all your headaches with late signups usin' "pay as you go", maybe you want to consider adoptin' a longer-run calendar and dues. Pay dues for the quarter, come on anything (or nothing). I've always felt micro-billing outings was a losin' game. B

Must an injury report be filed with Council? Nope. Think of council reports as "somethin' serious that might have long-term consequences or liability implications". Or when the ER doc says "we need to admit the patient." Would the camp have generated an injury report. Yah, for sure, eh? Should any reports be given to the charter organization? Depends. Yeh have to follow your CO's policies just as much as the BSA's. Does your CO have a policy for injuries on youth group field trips? Most do. Should the troop mainatin an injury report on this incident? Yah, I think it's good practice to always write up any injury that results in professional medical care, or any incident that would have required medical care if yeh hadn't gotten lucky (a near miss). And then do at least some sort of "internal review" with your scouters and/or key committee members to see what you can learn, eh? Dat also documents your "due diligence" should anybody come back later with a complaint for long-term disability because of the injury. Beavah

Yah, how about the Horatio Hornblower novels, especially for the young Sea Scout? B

Yah, and sometimes if you're a friend, or a respected scout or school "official", there's an opportunity that may come at some point where you encourage the mom to seek some "professional advice" and counseling on dealing with her fears/proper parenting. Yeh gotta be gentle, be the right person, and wait for the moment. But sometimes it's helpful to lead somebody to a support network that recognizes how people who care do have fears for their kids, but that there are productive ways of dealin' with 'em. B

Or yeh can "Just Say No." Seems like most of da time, we want to teach kids to be responsible team members, and that means staying for cleanup until the team is done. An exception should truly be an exception... a one-time thing for an unusual circumstance, for a boy who has otherwise been a good team member. Now, folks that sneak out, I think yeh often have to run a full lost camper drill and call the cops. Yeh just don't know, eh? Better safe than sorry. It'd be a good lesson to all the parents that you take your supervision responsibility seriously. If it turns out during the search that they discover the boy snuck home with a parent, then a bit of embarrassed apology to everyone goes a long way toward prevention, eh? Beavah

I'm with Gern. In most units, youth run isn't quite fully in place, and the youth-to-youth mentoring Veni describes ain't very complete. Mentoring's a different skill anyway, eh? One that even a good youth leader might not have yet. So it seems to me in most units that kids need a fair bit of prodding/support. Most common is not realizin' that doin' a good job takes dedicating extra time. I'd much rather see a kid develop to the point of reachin' some level of success (and feelin' proud o' that!) than givin' him a patch for time served and havin' him move on. Beavah

Yah, jambo, I think you're right, eh? But you're also sayin' the same thing as kb6. For every troop, boys and the troop as a whole can be at different stages. Lots of troops are just tryin' out youth leadership for the first time. They gotta go slow and provide a lot of adult support/guidance. Quite a few troops use same-age patrols, so they have a lot of those young 12-13 year old PL's rather than a bunch of 16-year-olds. Those need some stonger ASM guidance for the younger PL's. Some troops have all the ingredients in place, they can let the kids have a lot more control; they need the adults to be "spark plugs" for ideas to push them to think beyond the comfortable/familiar. Every now and again one of those units gets a group of kids that handles everything solo. Then they graduate. SM's have the goldilocks problem, eh? Doin' everything for 'em is "too hot". Not supportin' them enough is "too cold." Somewhere in between is "just right" for where a particular troop is at. B

Yah, practically speakin', there's good reasons to at least encourage it, eh? Not just the good example to the boys. The biggest reason, I believe, is that less-than-fit Scoutmasters sorta discourage and limit their boys' program. Troop programs, even in boy-run units, tend to follow the interest and abilities of the adults. If the adults aren't "interested" in backpacking, it really won't make it on a troop's calendar very often. So less-than-fit adults tend to yield less-than-excitin' outdoor program. Da troops that are out climbin' and mountain bikin' and backpackin' and whatnot all tend to have relatively fit adults, eh? The others quietly shortchange their boys' opportunities. Beavah

Yah, Gunny, I think the adult leader fitness requirements was packsaddles response to somethin' I wrote. Namely that we should have real fitness requirements for the youth for First Class Scout. Not just "show improvement" (of a fraction of a pushup or whatever), but actually "meet a standard." Same as we do for every other requirement, eh? I think it would be a fine thing to add 2C and 1C fitness requirements for boys. I think it would also be just fine to make adults do 'em. Seems to me the various armed forces PFTs are a perfectly reasonable standard. Those minimums look fairly minimum, eh? Seems like that level of fitness would be needed just to go get help when needed in the woods. Still, I think we'd want to add some further adjustments for the over 60 crowd. Armed forces don't usually keep 'em that long, eh? But we've got some fine scouters servin' into their 80s. I even hope to be one a few years down da road . Beavah

been denied advancement to Tenderfoot for the sake of half a pull-up... then we wonder why Scouting is losing members. Yah, not to pick on Aquila (for whom I have much respect). As I've said, I pretty much agree with everybody that usin' Tenderfoot as a fairly straightforward "easy first rank" is an OK way to go. Still, I'm startin' to feel that this "denied advancement" way of thinkin' might be the root of all advancement problems. The notion sure seems to me that a boy is "denied advancement" rather than advancement being something for the boy to achieve at his own pace. In Scoutin', advancement is never "denied," just "not yet achieved." That's the way the program is supposed to work! Advancement should never be an onus or a mandate, just somethin' to be worked at while havin' other fun. If adults and kids really have this "denied advancement" attitude, I think advancement method becomes really dysfunctional. Becomes something like school grades... a judgment on a boy, rather than an inspiration to a boy. Instead of SM conferences and BOR's along the way, (with every now and again a BOR sayin' "yes,") we get SM conferences and BOR's as final exams. Probably it reflects advancement gettin' too big, and out of place in the program. If a boy leaves Scouting because of advancement (either not gettin' it, or makin' Eagle and then quitting), then I gotta wonder where the rest of the program was for that troop. I'm startin' to think dat a troop that's gettin' into such a notion is better off just dropping the advancement program for a year. No ranks, no signoffs, no MB "classes." Take a year to rediscover the fun and adventure of the other seven methods and let those drive the program. Kittle's son seems to have found some of that fun and adventure, stayin' around for over three years without advancement. Seems to me like that's a better troop than one where a boy would quit for not gettin' Tenderfoot, because advancement is da only thing they do. Beavah

We have a boy in the troop who has been a Life Scout for 2 years. He filled his POR in the first year, but has only gone on 1 campout this past year. He comes to meetings once every 4 to 8 weeks, he would rather talk to his friends including the current SPL then participate when he is attending a meeting.... The problem I see is with the negative influence on the younger boys. Yah, this is where FScouter's "wisdom" comes in, eh? Some would say it's the unit's/SM's fault. They have not succeeded in "engaging" the boy. Therefore, since we shouldn't penalize a boy for adult failings, the boy should get Eagle regardless of whether or not he's showing good scout spirit, or responsibility, or being active. This is National's current "thing." At its core, it believes adults are responsible for advancement. That may be a piece of what's goin' on, eh? I think we gotta be reflective and look at ourselves and say "can we do better at programmin' for boys like this? More high adventure perhaps? Better job buildin' mentoring relationships? The other side of the coin is that it's a boy's (and family's) choice. He may like his Scouting friends, but his real interest lies in sports, or band, or hangin' out at the mall, or for any of a number of reasons he's not willing or able to put in the level of commitment it takes to grow and advance in the program. This view, that it's the boy's choice and responsibility, is really at the core of my view of Scoutin'. But to work, boys need to experience genuine results and consequences from their choices. If he doesn't cook dinner, nobody else comes along and does it for 'im, he just doesn't eat. If he doesn't participate regularly, he's still a friend and welcome guest but he's no longer a member, or at least not eligible for awards. The results of different choices have to be readily apparent to all the boys in the troop, so that each boy learns how to make his own good choices. By that measure, lettin' a boy be a "hanger on" and a poor example, and then get our highest award, does immeasurable damage to all da boys in the program. Poor examples aren't somethin' we want to have a lot of in a youth program. So which are yeh? Do you believe adults or youth are responsible for advancement? The former calls for lettin' the boy by, and maybe workin' better in the future. The latter calls for upholdin' "natural consequences of choices", while still buildin' mentoring relationships that help kids succeed at those real challenges they choose to engage with. And recognizin' them when they succeed. Beavah

I'd have to agree with you about the council and higher should be supporting the troops rather than vice versa. Yah, but that ain't the corporate culture, eh? Especially if, as in most councils, the CORs and the volunteers don't aggressively control the board. A good thing to do as a SM and/or a committee chair is to take your DE to lunch at least once a year. Just to allow him to talk to yeh about what life is really like in the office, where the time is really spent, what his evaluation and job really depends on, eh? That ain't just the BSA of course. Plenty of organizations where it seems like things exist to serve the upper levels, not vice versa. It's the norm, rather than the exception. B

Yah, ASM915 and KC, you're both doin' what all good scout leaders do, eh? You're findin' a way to work around or interpret things so as to do what's right for the growth of the boy. If national has surrendered on POR, handle it in the SM conference. If national has surrendered on POR, use a SM assigned leadership project instead, since those aren't subject to the time limit. (I gotta congratulate you, dat's a new one I haven't seen yet! ) I think all really good scout leaders have a vision of the big picture and a willingness to do what it takes to adapt to and respond to what each boy needs to keep growin'. And that means usin' the program materials, but not being hog-tied by 'em. And workin' around poor policies as necessary. Beavah

Nah, OGE and F. He wasn't askin' for "support materials" like FAQ and some of the program books. He was askin' about real bylaws and regulations adopted by the National Council, eh? Leastways, that's the way I interpreted it. He's right in sayin' that most of the FAQ and program material documents can are written (and edited/compiled) in all kinds of different ways. Some are fairly well vetted. Some are just one guy doin' his best. And some get butchered by the editor or webmaster B

Yah, I dunno if this conflict is a critical one or not. I suppose if a lot of troop SM's were involved in training it might be difficult. But if it is a conflict that needs to be resolved, the easier thing to move is the training weekend. It affects fewer people. It's also the polite thing to do, since it seems like the training weekend was scheduled after the camporee plans were already in place, eh? I dunno why yeh couldn't over lap the things either. Ain't it better to do trainin' in camp anyways? Beavah

Yah, Its Me. The Merit Badge program doesn't work that way, eh? It's supposed to be a mentoring relationship between a few boys and an "expert" in that area. Only when there's not enough local counselors is group instruction supposed to happen, but even then teachin' a whole troop all at once ain't a great way to go. Some troops I know do an "intro" at troop meetings. A counselor is invited to come in and do a presentation or a start-up activity at a meeting. Then boys who are interested can get with him/her after the meeting and set up times to get together and keep workin'. It's possible for a troop to provide some help with individual requirements as they plan events. Hike around the community (Cit. Comm.), plan to attend an international camping event (Cit. World), go hiking (Hiking), etc. Give kids a leg up, so to speak. But after that, it should be the kids goin' out on their own to work on badges. Otherwise, as you say, it's a jumbled mess, and they really don't benefit. What's tough these days is finding good counselors, eh? Ones who really know their material, and are good with boys, and are reliable. Takes some real effort by a district or troop to keep a good list goin'. Beavah

To follow up on that thought, I'd support a requirement that EVERY leader meet those same requirements, whatever they were, every year. Sauce for the goose, eh? I'm all for it, myself. Everybody goes on about bein' a good example to the boys by wearin' their uniform. Dat's easy, it doesn't require much effort or sacrifice from an adult, the way it does for a kid. A Scouter should be able to swim, plan and cook a dinner, or run a mile without dyin'. As long as the requirements were age-appropriate, seems like a fine notion. Beavah

If we the Scouters let the kids ride out their time, don't set expectations, and don't expect results, we deserve to be over-ridden on SM Conference and BOR appeals. We've not done our share of developing our young charges. Yah, KC, I appreciate your passion, but I think the above misses an important set of kids: the kids who don't get it, haven't (yet) done the job, but who the SM isn't yet willing to give up on and "fire." Same as Gonzo's example, except there's "signs of life"; kid is remorseful, wants to try harder, etc. Imagine if instead of serving in a POR the issue was swimmin' (which seems to be my example of the week ). You're supposed to get the boys to First Class in a year. So you're workin' with a boy in swimming classes. But before you get to the one-year mark, you have to choose: either fire the boy from swimming classes, or pass him for First Class without having learned how to swim. Even though the requirement says learn how to swim. Same deal here, eh? Though the requirement is to serve, and to do so actively, the SM has to decide to either fire him before 4 or 6 months or pass him even if he didn't perform any service, or wasn't active. There's no room to "keep working." Completely bass-ackwards way of thinkin' about advancement. Just another version of "a kid is owed advancement." Advancement is a tool we use to inspire kids to work hard on buildin' skills and character in order to get Recognition. If our choice is either to tell a kid to stop working (fire him), or reward him even though he hasn't built skills and character, then advancement is worthless. It should be dropped as a Method. Beavah

Are there a National set of Bylaws that can be referenced Yah, sure. Theyall give the common-sense definition of active, responsibility, and character. Kinda like the Patrol Leader Handbook quote above, eh?