Beavah

Yah, FScouter... Yeh gotta understand that the project signature is meant to be signed by the registered leader who is "closest" to da project, eh? The purpose, as stated in the booklet, is to certify that the boy actually did/led the project himself. In small units, a SM might do everything. In bigger units, ASMs get delegated tasks. Life to Eagle advisor/coach/mentor is one of those, eh? My guess is that more than half of the troops out there use some version of this position; it's a well-known and accepted variation in all councils I'm familiar with. -------- Packsaddle, IMO the Scout Spirit requirement is the most important one, eh? It's the only one that really gets to the heart of our goals, the only one that allows us to push boys a bit on issues of character, or doin' their best/doing more than the minimum. I think your job is to support da SM, eh? No boy is hurt by having a caring adult push him a bit to do his best job. And the Golden Rule applies too... do unto a fellow Scouter as you would have others do unto you. Nothin' worse for the health of a unit than adults not supportin' each other and the boys gettin' wind of it. Don't undermine your SM with this or other boys. Support him. Because that's what's best for da unit and da boys eh? I'd just tell the boy "SM Jones still has some issues with you about Scout Spirit. You need to get with him and work those out. I support him. Whether you recognize it or not, he gives a huge amount of time to you and the other guys in the troop. You have to respect that commitment. And one of the ways to do that is to listen to him when he's pushin' yeh to do even more, because he wants you to show your very best to the Board, eh?" Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, in his rant Gunny raised some interestin' points, eh? Like most Gunnys I know, he's a good egg, and went right out to get his BSA trainin' and certifications as soon as he took da post . Let's look at some of those BSA trainings, though. Safe Swim Defense. Safety Afloat. Climb on Safely. Trek Safely. All of 'em are 1-hour read-throughs of a set of rules. They really don't teach anybody the skills or judgment needed to be responsible for themselves (let alone kids) in those environments. It'd be downright frightenin' to have someone who had only done SA lead some kids on a movin' water canoe trip or someone who'd only done COS lead some kids on a climbing event. BSA mostly relies on gettin' volunteers who come to us with outdoor skills. Seems like rather than givin' us "legal fig leaf" one-hour trainin', we should be able to come with a resume like Gunny's, get a quick check on outdoor skills & judgment based on prior experience, and then be directed to what we're missin'. Maybe Gunny should do a LNT Trainer course, maybe Beavah should take Wilderness First Aid, maybe someone else should get an intro to Ages & Stages / workin' with youth. I really have cringed a bit at some of da BSA accident reports, where leaders were clearly in over their heads. It's hard to use "we're just volunteers" as an excuse for not meetin' the norms for youth wilderness leaders if we put kids at risk. What knowledge should an adult have before acceptin' responsibility for taking kids into the woods? paddlin' on rivers? climbing on rocks? campin' in da snow? Shouldn't it be more than Scoutmaster Specific? Beavah

1 to insist that changing lightbulbs really discriminates against atheists and candlemakers....

Yah, da problem is as we all know, there have been a lot more incidents and accidents in Boy Scouting than the ones listed in da article, eh? Honestly, there's no way of knowin' how we stack up to other organizations and other risks in life, because the BSA chooses not to have their professional staff participate in professional organizations which share expertise and data, like WRMC. The article is just anecdotes, with a slant agin' us. Da only fair criticism is that our pros aren't behavin' like other pros. If we shared data, it would be easy to demonstrate how safe we were, eh? And then very difficult for Ms. McGivney to criticize us. Beavah

Most troopers who've been an infantry squad leader or an artillery section chief, and most (line-ground) officers who've commanded a battery, have more than enough field experience to do the tasks we teach Boy Scouts in outdoor skills. I hope that gives you a good azimuth check! Nah, I disagree, KC. First, military training definitely isn't Leave No Trace. Military style campin' is unethical and even illegal most places we take kids. Second, as you mention, military leadership (mission-focused) definitely isn't da same as youth leadership (personal development focused). They're different beasts. If you're rappelin' out of a helicopter or down a cliff where people can be shooting at you yeh use very different techniques than when you've got lots of time to be safe about systems and provide emotional support. Beavah

Yah, onehouraweekmy***. Welcome to da forums, love your handle. Simple, practical answer to your questions: Council records are what counts. Council records are based only on the Advancement Report Forms submitted by the troop (paper or on-line). Blue cards are irrelevant. To get your unit's records up to date, simply fill out and submit Advancement Report Forms with all of this boy's rank advancement and MB's (be sure you put the correct, actual dates on the form for each!!!). It's your call whether yeh take da boy's word on those missin' cards, but I probably would, eh? Submit all the Advancement Report Forms with a brief note that you're updatin' records that your former Advancement Chair failed to submit, and everything will be kosher. Soothe anybody who raises an eyebrow with a tale of people who quit and a promise to do better in the future by submittin' advancement reports every month! Dat should fix it up, eh? Beavah

I'm seeing this thing as a tempest in a tea pot. However, in anticipation of a problem that hasn't yet happened: If the SM is obstinate and refuses to sign off, what recourse does the scout have? Do another project? What kind of approval power does an ASM have in this case? Can an ASM approve anything involved in the Eagle rank? Not sure what happened to OGE's response, but I'll try to channel his spirit 1) If you're the Eagle advisor, you can sign off on the project. Two signatures are required - one from da "Scoutmaster/Coach/Advisor" and one from the representative of the organization the boy did the project for. If the SM doesn't sign for either the project or for the Eagle Application (it has to be the SM for the Eagle Application), then the Scout (or the parent, or you as advisor) can appeal to the next higher level. That means his first appeal goes to the Troop Committee, who can overrule the SM and sign in his stead. After that, the appeal goes to the district and on up. Often, once yeh hit the district level, they'll choose to schedule a BOR and the appeal hearing at the same time. They conduct the review and decide simultaneously on the appeal. I'm not fond of that, eh? They should keep 'em separate. But it is sometimes hard to get people together twice. 2) None. Unless an ASM is acting as the eagle advisor, in which case he can sign for the project but not for the rank. 3) Same answer as #2. An ASM can can also approve a MB . Beavah

Yah, Crossramwedge, sure. Boys should be decidin' on their high adventure trip or big outing. Actually, boys should not only be decidin' on it, they should be doing all the planning, budgeting, and fundraising for it too, eh? And then just presentin' the plan to the committee for approval, with a list of things they need as "adult support." O'course, not every group of boys is there yet, eh? All of us adults fill in a bit to support boys where they're at... givin' 'em some resources or narrowing choices to a list of options or handlin' the financial side are all reasonable levels of adult support. Even choosing and planning most of da trip can be OK, if the boys have never seen a "big trip" before. Just that the goal should always be to educate the lads, so that the next year they can make it even more their own. Lookin' at your past posts, it seems like your roll in da troop is as a committee member. In that role, I'd gently bring up that it would be nice to have the SPL and ASPL involved in the planning, and push that idea bit with the SM and CC. That's about the limit of your role. Now, your son might have other ideas . I think it's just fine for the boys to come up with their own plan and bring it to the committee as an alternative. Beavah

Not somethin' for nuthin', eh? From the description, that's a lot of tax-payin' families. School district's position is fine, eh? So would the parents' (or the rest of da community's) position be when they choose to oppose the next school building or operatin' millage. There's a problem with playin' hardball. Everybody loses. The district should adopt the policy of the Mt. Pleasant, MI schools, which allows all youth/education-related NFP's free access, including the scouts. That one's survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS, and should be easy to adopt. Beavah

Yah, this is da reason for the pre-project approval process, eh? How individual councils and districts interpret the leadership project expectations varies. Your District Advancement Chair can give you a hand with questions if you don't know. Most of the councils and districts I've worked with would not approve a project like this, because there's an expectation that the leadership project requires demonstrating leading others (of various skill levels) in completing the project, eh? Or, if the project seemed really worthy, they'd work with da lad to turn it into an acceptable leadership project by doin' things like requiring him to subcontract different parts of the website, get at least 10 different people to write the content for different sections, etc. - turn him into a real production leader, rather than just a designer/programmer. Yah, all that should have happened in the approval process. Not fair to change the rules of the game now. Of course, if he took a left turn along the way and did somethin' different than what the board thought they approved, then the board should rightly send him back to do more work so as to demonstrate leadership/management of others (maybe spend 3 months teaching others how to update/maintain the website so it is an ongoing positive thing). As SM, you have to prepare him for that, perhaps. Talk to your DAC, share your concerns, get some direction. At your SM conference, I'd go through things, congratulate him on the work done, but also raise the concern. Maybe have him come up with a follow-up plan in case the board tells him he needs to. "Yes, Mr. Packsaddle told me that might be an issue; here's where I think I showed leadership of others, but if that's not enough, here's what I'd like to do to follow up." Then figure out if or where your unit committee blew it in the approval process, and make sure everyone learns from da mistake, eh? Around here, typical projects are about 100 man-hours of work, with about 20-30% of that being the boy himself (includin' planning time). Minimum expectation would typically be him supervising at least 5-6 others in accomplishin' the project, with parents/relatives contributin' not much more than any other Joe. Beavah

Ah, a fellow Heathen. The fact that an effective organization does certain things (like paint its bathrooms pink) does not mean that doing that thing will make another organization effective. All those fads suffer from a causality problem. Especially when it becomes a checkbox thing (Got a mission statement? Check.) Now, how much of our Advancement system copies from this silliness (as Kudu often points out)? Is bein' a First Class Scout just "pro forma check-a-block"? Beavah

Yah, I'm with VeniVidi.... Things we can learn from Harry Potter.... Houses/Patrols that you're really a part of and that you compete for are great. Most of learning should be actively doing things. Only evil adults like Professor Umbridge try to teach the Magic of Life as "theory" out of a book. The best teachers establish high standards, have great personalities, and really care. Having a rules list of 439 things that scouts are prohibited from doing marks you as a mean old Squib like Mr. Filch. Breaking such rules are a sign of joy and intelligence in youth. The Wisest of Headmasters lets even 11-year-olds face dark, frightening challenges on their own, with faith in their abilities. Friends are important. And the best friends are ones you face Trolls or Backpacking Downpours with. We all have to face Dementors from time to time. We do it with our memories of happy times, and with the symbols of those whose love we hold most dear. Sometimes the best kids don't make Prefect, or Eagle, and that's OK. Beavah

Yah, CA brings up another good point, eh? There's good and bad ways of sayin' "No." A bad way of saying "no" is to yell at a kid. Or to give a lecture. Or to make a set of arbitrary rules for them to argue with like junior lawyers ("if I always have to keep one end of my stick on the ground, then I can't walk with it, because I'd have to pick it up... and I could never put it in the car or use it to make a litter...":) ) Some good ways are to politely take the stick away, or give "the Scoutmaster's Look", or a real, honest explanation for why it worries you (if there is a real, easy-to-understand risk). Yah, and then to follow it up with a fun game, eh! Beavah

Yah, there's nuthin' worse than when the adult members of a troop don't have the same vision and ethics, and start squabblin'. Where is the Scoutmaster and ASMs in all this? They are really the program officers. If there was an error here, it was you approachin' the gentleman in question. That's the Scoutmaster's job, eh? Scoutmaster gets to set the rules for the adult participants and respond if they're not doin' their share. The SM probably has more "social capital" to pull off a successful resolution, eh? And that way you could have done your real job as CC - being the guy who backs up the SM when he needs it. Yeh shouldn't be on da front lines. And individual parent behaviors shouldn't be a topic for a Committee Meetin', eh? Even indirectly. Those are best handled in private. Those are small things to work on better as a CC. Mr. Maynard, who is your Chartering Organization? In the end, they set your vision and ethics, and decide who represents them as committee members and adult leaders. Sad to say, but often when people get this much on each other's case, the best solution is for the ones that don't have the CO's vision to "part company." Most CO's who aren't actively involved will go with the opinion of the principle volunteers (SM, etc.). You have to decide honestly whether your vision, or this other fellow's, is what the CO/key leaders believe in. And they have to decide, eh? So go have a chat with your COR if he/she is "real", or go have a chat with your IH (head of your CO, typically a pastor/president). Take the SM with you, and if you can a UC or DE. Lay things out, and ask how he/she would like to proceed. Be willin' to resign if they request it, but also offer a solution. Da typical solution is to have SM and COR meet with the problem parent, listen, explain they have confidence in you, and make it clear they either tow the line or look for another troop. Then next time, remember dealin' with parents is da SM's job. That way you as CC can be the guy who "has a serious chat" with da parent, without havin' to pull your COR into it. There are other possible solutions. Here are just a few: Take the high road. Apologize in public for singlin' the man out at the committee meeting and in person (see above), and then change the conversation back to how the job of the committee is to support the Scouters and the program. You can even combine this with the COR giving a short "mission and expectations" talk to the committee. Give up the CC job to somebody else you know who will do a great job might be one. That might defuse tensions and personalities, and let everybody just go back to supportin' the boys. And da COR combination works here, too, eh? If you've got the majority support of the committee, just have the "blow out" meeting where he rants and raves, you act polite, he gets voted down and you move on with things, but he feels like he's had his day in court. Not my favorite method, but it can work sometimes. Bring da SPL and ASPL to the committee meetings; adults often behave better if there are kids around. Which way yeh should go just depends on the circumstances and personalities, eh? So relax, take a breather, get in a better frame of mind. It's only a little volunteer youth program, eh? Find some perspective, then proceed calmly. But no matter what you choose, you do need to keep your COR "in the loop". Beavah

The percentage of accidents is extremely low, probably lower than any other camping group.... Drew Leemon, risk-management director for the National Outdoor Leadership School, says the BSA joined the committee for the annual Wilderness Risk Management Conference from 1997 to 2001, but declined to share accident data with the group. Guess we'll never really know, eh? I think it's fair criticism if our professionals aren't participatin' in the same level of safety and risk management professional activity as other groups. Da rest of the article, though, is just anecdotal blather. Beavah

Yah, easy there guys. It's so easy when hearin' someone else "talk" online, to imagine a kid I knew who did somethin' like that . But that's my imagination, eh? That might not be at all what my fellow scouter is dealin' with. I think CA's comment about walkin' in shoes is good feedback, and feedback is a gift. Close as I can tell, CA's done a great, thoughtful job with a tough situation. I'm not one who believes in the whole "Scouting is there to save every troubled youth" bit. It's a volunteer activity program. Most volunteers don't have anywhere near da skill required to "save every youth" , and some kids exercise their free will to say they don't want to be saved. Whenever I hear a scouter go into da "save every youth" bit I confess I think to myself "now here's a guy with a good heart but not much real experience." Our job as volunteers is to do the best we can with the resources God and the community have given us. That always means makin' hard choices so as to hold kids accountable. Sometimes those hard choices mean takin' a timeout or not Scouting anymore. We've got a local businessman who gives beyond the James West level every year. He was thrown out of Scouting by his troop when he was 15. To this day he claims it saved his life; it was the first time anybody cared about him enough to really say "No" and not let him wriggle out of it. Beavah

Yah, there's some things that just seem natural to boys. Play fightin' is one of 'em, eh? Any decent sized stick on the ground usually becomes a gun or a sword given enough time, and various games of "king of da mountain" on snow piles, snowball fights, and all other improvisational roughhousin' is part of their life. Such things can be fun and healthy, eh? I remember years of fun as a lad playin' army with stick guns and dirt-clod grenades. Da flipside is that most kid roughhousin' will escalate over time until it becomes unsafe and someone is cryin'. They don't always have a "natural circuitbreaker". As Gunny describes, if you've got bullyin' issues in your troop, the play-fighting can become a focus for that, too. So yeh just got to decide, eh? You can just not bring walking sticks. Boys don't really need 'em. Avoid the temptation. You can spend your adult time yelling at 'em near constantly to try to stop 'em doing something that seems so natural. You can keep outings so busy that they don't have "down time" to play around like that. You can let some of it happen, and keep an eye on it, teaching 'em how to keep it fun and safe. I suspect the "feedback" you're gettin' is that #2 is makin' parents uncomfortable, because it feels too harsh/too constant/not right tone to 'em. Yeh gotta make the call, fox! Maybe try a different option and see how it goes? Beavah

Yah, PeteM. If you were a coach, what would you do with a boy who had earned MVP da previous year but is skippin' practices and being unsportsmanlike this year? Advancement is a recognition. While in some extreme cases, National has revoked an Eagle rank already awarded, it's mostly a done deal. So now yeh got 7 methods left to keep workin' with the young man. So you use the Outdoors, Adult Association, Patrol Method, Youth Leadership (peer pressure), etc. to keep helpin' him grow. Of course, this does depend a bit on what da crime is, eh? If it's somethin' serious enough yeh may just need to cut him loose. But for first-time and minor offenses, I'd play "good cop". Be the stable set of friends that recognizes and brings out the good part of him, eh? He's gettin' enough of "bad cop" from his parents and the justice system, I expect, so he doesn't need you pilin' on if he's already remorseful. Yah, use da Methods, let Scoutin' continue to work its magic. Yah, that's it for the lad; now for da program. It might just be worth reviewin' whether yeh were a bit lax on the "Scout Spirit" requirements for all the ranks along the way. Maybe, just maybe that let this lad skate through to become less of an Eagle than you hoped. Did yeh see earlier signs? Did yeh not respond because you thought Scout Spirit was "automatic"? Did that perhaps cause yeh to miss opportunities that might have helped the boy struggle through things earlier on? Always worth a bit of reflection, even if in the end you conclude yeh did all you could. Beavah

Yah, Bradwillkall, sounds like da core issue that's troublin' you is that you don't like how your SM is doin' some things, or perhaps yeh don't even like your SM much. That makes it tough for us, eh, because we're only gettin' your perspective. It's hard to see clearly that way. I think it's safe to say that most of the folks here are readin' some of your descriptions of your SM's actions and cringin'. For a highly experienced scouter, and da sorts of dedicated souls who haunt internet forums, it's safe to say we might handle things a bit differently. Encouragin' big trips, supporting youth planning, finessing election issues in kinder ways, etc. None of us are perfect, though, and there's lots of fine adults in Scouting who don't yet have a lot of experience, or don't have da time to be quite as dedicated. Part of life, eh? While it's good to recognize someone's strengths and weaknesses, I want yeh to be careful about what you do with that knowledge. Being Kind applies as much to how you treat adults as it does your peers, eh? So if you're recognizin' that your SM's talent or approach is limited in some areas, I'd encourage you to think about how to work with that. In what ways can you encourage him to lighten up a bit? In what ways do you know he's not ready to change, so you have to work around the weakness or provide additional support? In what ways might he have more knowledge/skill than you, and so you should trust him or at least listen more closely? I think one of da coolest parts of growin' up in Scouting is learning earlier than in most activities that adults are human, too. That we really aren't always great "authorities" and that we need the help and insight of young people in many, many areas. So try to be kind to your SM, while doing what you can to help out and offering feedback to both him and the troop committee as appropriate. Maybe your example of kindness will rub off, eh? Or maybe your feedback will help the committee decide on adjustments. Just keep workin' hard, and workin' together. Beavah

Yah, no official rules or literature, eh? Packs are all over da place on this. I personally am fond of havin' den dues, with the pack coverin' for any needy families out of pack monies.

LOL, Longhaul! Yah, not mutiny, eh? Maybe just a bit of polite subversion .

I feel that their are concerns about confidentially with some people on the EBOR Yah, Foxy, I'm still confused, friend. Ain't nuthin' confidential about an Eagle Board of Review. It's a public thing. It ends with a public award, or a letter directin' a scout what steps he has left to finish up. The committee members are supposed to report back to the whole committee and the CO about the content and outcome of the EBOR, which helps the committee help the program. Some of the committee members are from the broader community. It's not really a spot for confidential conversation with a boy. Every now and again an EBOR ends up talkin' a bit about some personal stuff with a boy which people should be courteous about, eh? Yah, and of course the recommendation letters are confidential. But that's about it, eh? It ain't a grand jury . Maybe if yeh let me know in a PM what yer thinkin' needs to be kept confidential I can be more helpful. Beavah

Yah, my goodness. Thanks for writin' Bradwillkall, and welcome to the forums, eh? What you're describin' is odd to me in all kinds of ways; separate committees, SM's not supportin' an excitin' youth idea, adult committee members doing planning. Sometimes adults are just odd people, yeh know? We can't give up our own notions enough to make space for yours. So a question for you and your mates: Is this your plan? You guys want to do a trip to Yellowstone and you're willing to do the work for it? And control the planning? If so, then I think you proceed, and you take every obstacle that comes your way and work around it, climb over it, or blow it up. Every grand adventure and good deed has a bunch of nay-sayers to deal with. Don't let it get you down. If you can't meet at the regular spot, well then get all your friends together and meet at Dennys, or the library after school, or Brad's house. Call and make your own reservations, get the job done and then tell the adults what the plan is. It's OK to listen and make compromises, of course (any cheaper cabins? good camping around?), because adults sometimes have good ideas. But stay involved, and make it happen! If your SM refuses to go, say things like "That's too bad, Mr. Jones, we would have liked you to come, but we understand. We'll find somebody else to be SM for the trip." Every time your SM or any adult starts to go negative on you, say something like "That's OK Mr. Jones, we have faith in ourselves even if you don't have faith in us." You get the idea. Be smart, be sophisticated. Work with adults who will work with you, work around the rest. We'll even help yeh if we can. But no surrender, no retreat!! Your success will be quite a legacy that will change your troop for years to come, and Yellowstone will be a blast (be sure to get into da backcountry there, too... it's awesome, and away from the crowds). Beavah

Yah, kraut-60, good thoughts, eh? I agree with you. I don't think there's much point in gettin' too upset about our slow erosion in the public sphere. Really doesn't affect us much, eh? Even guys like me who've worn gold tabs in the past are really more into it for what we can do for kids locally. But it does affect us on the edges, and it affects da kids and parents who are on the edges, makin' 'em less likely to choose Scouting. Good kids and good parents, too, not just pigs. That's new. In days of yore, we didn't have articles in Backpacker about how we were unsafe in the woods, or land managers who'd prefer to ban Boy Scouts if they could because of lack of LNT ethic. We didn't have as direct a fight in da culture wars, and we didn't have a large set of American parents who feel that sports are better at character and fitness than we are. No harm in recognizing those pressures, and what their long-term effects are. I think the biggest one is fewer of the long-term Lem Siddons type SM, because of mobility, dual income, and other family pressures. Consequences of the times, with impacts on us. Not sure why comments about white, etc. wouldn't belong here, eh? That's our demographic, just a statement of statistics. Every regional office knows it from our numbers. Scouting has made very little inroads into other socioeconomic and ethnic communities. Just who we are, eh? Like you, I'm not in favor of dragoonin' folks for diversity, I think in most cases we don't match the need/market for what other folks are lookin' for. So like I said, I'm not down on the program, I'm a big fan. We do a grand job for the kids we reach, and will for some time to come. There's no harm in acknowledgin' the truth about the broader picture, and how it impacts us. Even da small things, like discouragin' Pack 378 eh? And who knows, perhaps acknowledgin' 'em will give somebody a good idea on how to do things a bit better for the kids they're workin' with. Beavah

Quite a funny thread, eh? You crack me up. Merlyn, I gotta say, though... The mention of the Boy Scouts and Little League seems pretty clear to me. "Let's use the two most respected and easily identified nationwide youth programs." That way everyone will immediately recognize 'em, and we don't have to waste any screen time doing backstory. So to me, it seems like the only message is that Boy Scouting is still a respected and easily recognized nationwide youth program. Although I'm sympathetic to Ed's POV. This may just be good product placement . Beavah