Beavah

Seen it twice. Both were resolved in da way Lisa'bob suggests. Best for the boy to take a friendly adult to the meetin' with the agency. Makes for less unnecessary "confusion."

Yah, a bit of a "lynch da CO" sentiment here. I wonder where everyone gets all the rope all the time. This was a summer camp wilderness survival MB group, with two scout staffers acting as (assistant) MBC's. They were doin' the WS overnight. No CO or unit leader to blame, eh? You might remember this camp as the one that lost a camper in '05 who was found only after a massive search. Even if it was a troop campout, the whole point of insurance is that it covers you when bad things happen. The VFW shouldn't lose their building because their scouts messed up. At least, if you want any VFW posts (or churches, or...) to continue to sponsor scout troops. Not covering a claim, or subrogating against the CO, is a death sentence to the BSA. And, much like the defense in this case, would also be dishonorable and not particularly successful.

Nah, it's clearly addin' to the requirements, eh? Nowhere does it say a boy has to go through an older scout review for advancement. The boy can appeal, and you can lose your insurance coverage for not followin' da program! Just kiddin'. Bet yeh thought I'd been possessed or somethin'. A fine tweak to try, GWD. Thanks for sharin'. Let us know da downside, too, if yeh run across any.

Ah, Lisa'bob, I love you. Include youth, but with adults. Find good BOR people, train them and let them gain experience as observers. Good communication with the boy and SM. Tackle real issues. Amen, sistah! Yah, da best BOR's I've sat on start with what Lisa'bob highlights: BOR members who are knowledgeable (about the kid and program) and who are good at talking to kids. So many boards I've been on have adults who don't connect well with kids, don't ask very kid-friendly questions, and especially who don't listen well. The best BOR's I've been on have almost always taken longer than the BSA 10-15 minutes. Once a boy is at ease, these things are fun, eh? They shouldn't be exhausting, but they should naturally run their course depending on the boy's attention span. Da best BOR's are tailored to the boy - the people know the boy well enough to challenge him, give him good feedback, and to let him shine. I remember a 2nd Class BOR in one troop that spent 30+ minutes just on First Aid, because the boy was on fire he was so excited about being asked tough, thoughtful first aid questions. Dat led to conversations about his experiences in the troop, and safety, and oath and law, and future plans for high school coursework and MB's. I like there to be some skill questions. It affirms the work the boy has done, and supports the learning part of the program as being important. Yah, it's also a much easier icebreaker for a boy to answer something concrete like "How would you remove a tick?" than somethin' like "How does the 9th point of the Scout Law pertain to citizenship?" I don't mind troops that retest on BOR's, though I think it is easier to handle in other ways and can get out of hand. I don't care much at all for BOR's that become an exam requiring 100% to pass. I really don't like the short, nothing-but-fluff BOR's. Just seems disrespectful to a kid who has worked hard, and to the adults who are spendin' their time to come in for the evening. It doesn't provide useful feedback, or really help a boy develop confidence in an interview-like situation. Seen more and more of these lately, tho', under the mantra of "do not retest." I think most troops need a BOR to say "not yet" at least once every couple of years. Just to keep things serious, keep standards up, respond to the lad who's sneakin' by on minimal effort. Da SM and PLC need someone else to be "the heavy" sometimes. In a troop with good communication, they even tip the BOR off, eh? There's a certain informal-but-serious tone I like in BOR's. Dat's kinda hard to describe, eh? Not all salutes and such, but not totally laid back either. Friendly, but solid. Those are just my personal preferences, o' course. Really, I think an ideal BOR matches the spirit and character of a troop, and serves the troop by bein' what the troop needs it to be.

It seems to me that there is a pretty significant divide here on what a BOR is supposed to be like. There are some people who think that a BOR focuses on scout skills, giving the scout the opportunity to "show his stuff" or to prove that he really satisfied the requirements. There are others who think that it is a different kind of conversation, and is primarily designed to look at the broader issues of the scout's participation in scouting and his commitment to its ideals. I suppose it could be both... You betcha. How a unit conducts BOR should reflect the unit's goals and philosophy, eh? They're goin' to be different. That's an OK thing. Units use the Uniform Method differently. Units use Adult Association differently. Patrols are organized and used differently. Units are going to implement Advancement differently. Until you see a real problem for a bunch of kids, it's OK to say "Hey, I don't do it that way, but if it works for your kids and families, great. And thanks for being a Scouting Volunteer!"

Yah, the real incident in Utah was dumb, eh? Just another in a long series of bad scoutin' incidents that have soured land managers, particularly in the Rocky Mountain states. What was truly dispicable, though, was the BSA legal filing trying to dodge responsibility. Not entirely the BSA's fault, because obviously the case is being handled by the BSA's insurers, and they're going to do everything possible to get out from under a $14M judgment. Still, it hits the news as the BSA's action, not their insurer's. We put more kids in the field, though, so yah, we attract more heat. We put less experienced leaders in the field with those kids than any commercial group. Our groups tend to be much larger than average, so they have a bigger social impact. And typically, we don't establish the same kind of long-term relationships with land managers that the commercial groups do. Troops are often one-shot visitors to a particular area, not regulars. In our area, college & weekend drunks are worse than troops, though. Yah, so some incidents are just goin' to be par for the course, eh? But this negative stuff should be a reminder to us that we need to do better.

Yah, Jeff H, so you never drive at night either? What we have here is a Beavah's failure to communicate. Troop 2 as far as I know never deliberately violated G2SS, except where it was obviously stupid, eh? (like no nighttime driving). My memory is that they ignored it, as in "never read it." I expect that describes 80-90% of the troops out there, eh? Only us internet gnomes with too much time on our hands can quote chapter and verse. I expect in most ways, Troop 2 had a far more explicit and strict safety program than G2SS. It might not have been the same on all points, but theirs met a high standard of care - much higher than G2SS or a typical troop. Different is sometimes just different. Da real point that worries me is the many Scouters who quote and rely on G2SS (and other BSA materials), who don't understand the principles. That got Troop 1 in trouble, eh? G2SS may say "all equipment must be suited to the craft, to the individual, and to the water conditions." But the average trained scouter doesn't know what that means on the Menominee River in spring. A guy who knows how to paddle that river with novices like as not is followin' the spirit of G2SS better without readin' it than the scouter who quotes the book at him. That was my only point, eh? Sorry for bein' a poor communicator. Troop 2 had an excellent safety record.

Sat in on lots of BOR's for different troops. Seen everything from the 10-minute "Hi, how are yeh? Did you have a nice time last weekend?" boards to the hour and a half skill review fests. I gotta agree with the old Owl. The most useless waste of kid and adult time are the former. In addition to bein' pointless, they convey an attitude that "adults don't really care about this stuff" and "this is a blowoff." Not what I like to see troops teach kids by example. Yah, the kid spent a lot of time and effort workin' through all those requirements, eh? Seems like a matter of simple courtesy for adults to spend some time lettin' a proud lad show his stuff. That's not to say I'm fond of the hour and a half skill reviews either. Half the time the adults who are "strict" about such things don't know what they're talkin' about, and are coverin' for their own lack of skill. Balance, balance is the key. And knowin' and respondin' to the boy. A bright, saucy lad might need a little challenge, eh? An ADHD boy might be better served by doin' a few knots and lashings than tryin' to answer abstract questions about the Oath, at least to start. A quiet, shy, nervous lad I find is usually best answering simple questions about a skill he knows well to start warmin' to the members. As OGE says, a boy who forgets a few things gets the rank, eh? But a boy who's just lost, or who clearly has been blowin' things off or scammin' his way by gets to try again. The first because he needs to have the experience of real success, the second because a temporary setback is the right lesson.

Where did this idea that committee members don't wear a uniform come about? From careful observations of the real world, eh?

Yah, SueM, district people I've sometimes found are among the least well-informed out there, eh? Districts exist as a convenient organizational mechanism to provide service to units. Nobody from da district should be tellin' a unit what it can and can't do. Not their role. I'd encourage yeh to treat what yeh heard like so many other Scouting rumors and wives' tales you pick up at district. But, since yeh specifically asked for quotes, I'm sure OGE will get a good chuckle out of this old Beavah quotin' the guidebook, eh? I'm using Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures #33088D . Keep in mind bad rumor has it that an updated version due out this year essentially gives Eagle to any parent who whines . The review has three purposes: * To make sure that the work has been learned and completed. * To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop. * To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. ... long description here including "not an examination" and also "the board should make sure a good standard of performance has been met." BOR members are encouraged to refer to the Boy Scout Handbook, SM Handbook, and other references. "At the conclusion of the review, the board should know whether a boy is qualified for the rank or Palm... The decision of the board of review is arrived at through discussion and must be unanimous. .... If the board decides that the Scout is not ready to advance, the candidate should be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily. Most scouts accept responsibility for not completing the requirements properly. The members of the board of review should specify what must be done to rework the candidate's weaknesses and schedule another board of review for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to a Scout who is turned down for rank advancement, confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement." (p. 29-30). ----- Now, all that's just fine and dandy. But what do you and your CO want the kids to learn, and how do you think it's best to use the BSA advancement program to get there? What's your view of character? Does fitness include learning? Is feedback on learning important for the BOR to get? What sort of kids do you attract? What's the right level to set the bar for them? What do you feel the SM's role in setting/maintaining that bar is? How about the Committee's role? Ferget all the books and district gnomes and such for a minute. Ask yourself, "How should this work for us, to get the kids to where we want them to be?" Discuss that with your ASM's and Committee. Do that. Don't worry about the other fuddy-duddys, or Old Beavah's quotin' guidebooks.

Yeh know, gwd, patrol method is a great thing. It's a useful way to break up a larger troop into small, working groups led by boys, that are the right "natural size" for boy leaders to handle. Pick-up ball-team size. Run around da neighborhood size. If you're not there yet, you're not there yet. You're _at_ the perfect boy leader size. So have a patrol, eh? Elect a Patrol Leader, decide on a patrol flag and yell, run patrol outings. The only thing yeh can't pull off yet is patrol competitions, 'cause you only have one patrol. But that patrol can compete against itself (try to improve time, for example). Yeh can also team up with another troop that has one or two patrols for a real sense of patrol spirit. Just don't try to force a square peg into a round hole. My experience has been the same as yours. A viable patrol in the modern world is usually 8-12 boys. That gives you enough so that you have 4-6 boys out for any particular event. So until yeh get up to 16 or so, you won't have enough for 2 patrols. And keep workin' on your recruitin'. It's a funny thing, once you have good program, you'll suddenly find that your recruitin' "works" one year. Almost like yeh have to put in the time durin' those dry years to build a "buzz" that pays off down the road. You're buildin' buzz. Keep doin' it, you'll grow.

Yah, this is annual meetin' month in most councils. For everyone out there in net-land who cares about our fellow volunteers in the Chicago mess, or the several (many?) councils engaged in numbers shenanigans, it's time to make your voice heard. Your council sends several people to the National Council as voting members. These are selected at your annual meeting. As soon as you can, grab your COR and have him call your council president and set up a meeting with the proposed representatives on the council nominating committee slate. Go with your COR and tell them that you expect them to introduce or support a national resolution in support of executive accountability and local control. Expect them to vote "yes" on the national slate only if it moves toward a more service-oriented approach, etc. Make your concerns known! If your council's proposed representatives don't seem to agree and support such a position of heightened oversight and accountability, have your COR VOTE NO on the proposed slate at the annual meeting, and tell everyone in the room why. Yeh might not win the first year. Or the second. But if da good folks in Chicago and Michigan can persevere, so can we.

Yah, Mollie. It is possible to register a scout as "inactive." This mechanism has always been available. If yeh have a knowledgeable council registrar, you can make the change to or from "active" status anytime during the year, at the troop's discretion. So you can call the council every month and update the troop's "active" list (don't think there's an on-line way to do it yet). In other words, there is an official, bureaucratic way to do the right thing (for advancement) in terms of honorin' the spirit of being active as given in the Handbook. Pretty ham-handed, awkward mechanism. Never really seen anyone use it.

It's the "bad guys" that feel their style being cramped that seem to be the ones that object the loudest to any hint if rules and policies. Nah, yeh missed the point, F. I don't really think there are "bad guys" in Scouting. Precious few, anyways. But you and SR540 keep dodgin' the bullet with abstract objections and pithy digs. Let's hear some concrete. What do you do with Troops 1 and 2? These are (or, well, were) real life, honest to goodness, flesh and blood programs with at least well-meaning adults and real kids in them. Or at least tell us whether you really refrain from driving on outings at night. Parents seemed to have no problem trusting their kids to either unit, especially to Troop 2, though I understand the point Lisabob is trying to make. It is scary for parents, especially if a boy is their oldest. If I recall, the CC from Troop 2 required an orientation for new parents, and was very up-front about their program. I think parents are influenced far more by the percieved competence and character of people, and the happy reports of other kids and parents, then they are about an obscure guidebook none of them has read. And a good scout leader will take the time to explain to them the how's, why's, and whatfor's anyway if they ask. Or even if they look a bit unsure .

This weekend is our Winter Skills campout (55f in Januaruy in Massachusetts?) and he expressed interest in showing the younger guys how to use a Dutch oven. This past troop meeting, he said "No, Ive decided I dont want to do that, Im not going on the campout" Yaha! I get it! Does this boy even know how to use a Dutch Oven himself? Let alone actually teach it? You've said he probably shouldn't have made it through his T-2-1 conferences... It's unfortunately too late to save this weekend. The thing to try is to meet with him outside of troop time for a couple of hours and teach him how to use the Dutch Oven. Have him practice. Meet a second time and fine-tune. Even meet a third time and let him teach you. This strikes me as a boy who wants to do well, but just doesn't know how to start. He's got the itch to be a "player". He wants the attention. But not knowin' or bein' confident in how to get it the right way, he reluctantly gets it the wrong ways. And I expect he's scared to death of lettin' his lack of competence show in front of other boys, so he's never going to ask for help. Identify the adult he connects best with. Jump on anything he expresses interest in. Teach him first in a low-stress environment away from the other kids. Make sure he's ready. Then let him come back to the other kids as "the guy who knows it". And who the SM trusts with it. Takes effort. Maybe more than you have adult time for. But if what mom says is right, and he's not in other activities, I betcha he could be one of your best in a year or two.

How can he be responsible for the troop when it is going in 3-4 different directions at the same time. By trainin' and working with (and through) the Patrol Leaders. Takes more effort on the SM's part, eh? And more trust. Yeh really have to do a good job teachin' them, not just checkin' off a box. And then yeh really have to trust your teaching job, and the boys.

Yah, smincz. Where are you overseas? The Scout Associations in your country can be an enormous resource. Your boys can go and do a long-term camp with them! Just throw in a few U.S. merit badges/T21 on the side (or accept MB's "in translation") and you've got a great fun program. Even if you want to do your own thing usin' Kudo's resources, most Scout Associations will let you use their property for free as a guest.

Encouraging boys to finish is certainly honorable. Writing up an (unauthorized) rule may have the unintended result of teaching boys to wait until the last minute, or quit the effort. Maybe there's a better way to teach boys to finish what they've started? Could well be, FScouter. I've never "gotten" the one year rule myself. To help "push" kids to finish things like summer camp partials, yeh need a much shorter deadline. Maybe the one year rule is a courtesy to the MBC, so he/she doesn't have a lad go AWOL for a long stretch, but instead keeps him movin'. Easier to get MBC's when there's a finite commitment. Might also be to protect the scout in some areas. Our district MBC's are pretty stable, but I've seen districts where there are a lot of changes each year. Can be rough on a boy and a counselor to switch mid-badge. Don't know. Easiest to just go to the SM and ask the easiest way to handle it to move the lad along with minimal fuss. We want to see another Eagle soon, eh? Just lost a good one this week. Need a replacement.

I firmly believe that the patrol method is the ONLY way to run a troop. Green Bar Bill would be proud. But now you've got a different problem. As CC, you cannot, must not dictate to the SM how to run the program. That's what we call discourteous micromanaging. From your committee position, it's quite likely that you don't see clearly some of the obstacles to moving to more of a patrol method that the SM sees. So yeh have to figure out how to move gently, while inspiring the SM with your respect. I'd suggest that you try to nudge him into WB, eh? Seems like you've got a good bunch of staffers locally. Invite him to a gatherin' over cheese and beverage with your WB patrol. Let them join you in the "pitch" - not of Patrol Method, but of WB. At the gathering, talk about how great your SM is in front of him to your fellow WB's. Make da WB community something that he wants to feel more a part of. Your SM has to discover the Patrol Method himself for anything to work. Then, as when he slowly gets started in a year or so, your job is to watch his back and handle the pitch to the uncertain parents. Beavah and a good ol' Beavah too.

Yah, OGE, that's sort of it, eh? Leastways I think so. I'd say it differently. But the point is, as you say, "to try to do the right thing." Always. And I agree that our responses are shaped in part by our individual experiences. I too have seen too many individuals in scouting who don't do a very good job for the kids, or even perhaps are "in it for themselves," at least in terms of feelin' important. Almost all have been rule-quoters, eh? Real skill, experience, and service earns its own respect. Rule quotin' can be a way for those with less skill and experience to demand respect. Sometimes that's OK, in the beginnin', for a shaky SM or PL who is still learnin'. But mostly not. So yah, like SR540 says, I've seen too much of it in scouting, and I've seen it hurt kids and damage programs, or just be an excuse for lousy service. The pros in Troop 2 were exceptionally safe without needin' to pick up G2SS. The ones that put kids at risk in Troop 1 quoted G2SS without understanding the underlying principles. Bein' rescued from a snow camp by the sheriff with half a dozen hypothermic kids is more worrisome than playin' Laser Tag. Even if yeh have a tour permit. Not sure if that's more optimistic, eh? Perhaps we're seein' different sides of poor leaders. But aside from that small bunch (who often seem to gravitate to district jobs ), I am impressed nearly weekly by the quality and service of the unit scouters I meet. They don't get everything right. None of us do. But they are there week in and week out for rambunctious, moody, exasperating and inspiring young rascals. And I see those young rascals become great young men every year. Dat's the important thing to get right, eh? YiS, Beavah

The successful crews in our area are all what Eamonn describes. Outdoor adventure crews (& ships) put together by Boy Scouters who have the skills and enjoy working with kids in that age group. Beyond that, I know of one historical re-enactment crew in our council, way on the other side. On the boy side, they appeal mostly to Boy Scouts who have gotten tired of the little-kid stuff (including the uniform and advancement), or whose troops don't have an effective older scout/high adventure program. On the girl side, they draw primarily from sisters of active boy scouts who want to get outdoors, and friends. Few really use the materials in a "tight" way the way that Packs, or to a lesser extent Troops do. They do tend to struggle a bit with "ongoing recruiting." I've never understood Youth Ministry or Hobbies crews. The BSA really has nothing to offer these groups, and they do just fine with their churches or hobby associations. To be fair, it's a hard age group for any non-school program to hold. We aren't the only ones who have trouble with the 15-18 year olds. But da program is a bit vague. The successful units all seem to "add to the program" a lot of their own stuff.

Yah, there's no time limit from da BSA, ddhanso. Some troops will use a time limit as a way of encouraging boys to finish. That's a goal worth honoring. For long-term badges, a lot of review may be required anyway, in order to meet the BSA's expectations. A badge has to reflect what the boy is able to do, not what he has done. But you've got the right approach, eh? Ask your SM or CC. I'd do it in a friendly way outside of a meeting, at least to start. CNY's suggestion may be the simplest if there's an issue; just get a new card to have the counselor sign, since the boy can do all the requirements, eh? I wouldn't recommend consult with your district advancement chair and/or find a new unit. There's easier and friendlier ways to proceed. Let us know if we can help further.

Hiya Chippewa! Like everything, "it depends." There can be all kinds of reasons why on a given campout the patrols are close together. The most likely one is the size of the site (or of the garage, if there's a reason to be cookin' in a garage). But yah, in general I agree with you. Yeh want patrols to be autonomous, to learn to be self-reliant. There are lots of ways to work on that, but one of the good ones is if it's at least slightly inconvenient to break up and mix with other patrols, either personally, or for gear, or whatever.

Right. It's (most) important to follow the rule. I understand that position, gentlemen. I just disagree is all. I think the principle is service and the kids, and that's what's important. The fundamental assumption of a rules-centered/Stage 4 reasoning society is the one that keeps coming up in the examples used: "Other people are bad (or will do bad things). They must be regulated." But one can also proceed from a different assumption: "Other people are good, and must be respected and allowed freedom." One can look at Troop (1&) 2 and see bad things to be stopped. Or, yeh can look at Troop (1&) 2 and see good things to be built on. Just different perspectives. I know I shan't convince anyone by typin'. But this is the issues forum, eh? So let's live in the world of rules for a bit, and set up some of its straw men. Leastways, then yeh can chide me for that. I assure everyone that no insults are intended on my part, and none will be taken. And I apologize for any that may have been felt unwittingly, OGE. Think of this as fun jawin' around a campfire. Ignoring black-letter G2SS rules is "unacceptable." So... G2SS states as black-letter "policy" that [For] all boats under sail or power fire-fighting equipment and lights must also be carried aboard. When was the last time you saw a summer camp Sunfish sailboat equipped with a fire extinguisher and running lights? G2SS black-letter policy states If a unit plans a trip within 500 miles of the home base, it is important that the unit obtain a local tour permit. Yet somethin' like a third of da BSA Councils out there don't require or accept a local tour permit for trips within their council service area. And again, from G2SS, All driving, except for short trips, should be done in daylight. Yah, dat's my favorite, eh? That would end most weekend camping trips up here for 6 months out of da year. Not a single troop I know of in the North follows that one. G2SS: Trucks may not be used for transporting passengers except in the cab. Dat rules out ambulances, eh? I've personally been part of a camp rescue where a litter was loaded into the bed of a truck because that was the best and safest way available to evacuate the kid. But apparently the better choice would have been to turn a fairly simple 30-minute evacuation into a many-hour ordeal in order to follow the rules. And another: I think I mentioned in a previous post that some rural areas in da north are pretty confusin', and not highly trafficked. Very easy to get lost and stuck, which can be dangerous. Some areas of da west are even worse, eh? So, knowin' that it's safer when in those areas to caravan, do yeh do it? Or do yeh reduce safety by applyin' the do not travel in convoy rule which was designed for highways and towns? No one-on-one contact. So, from another thread, do yeh allow the Catholic Scout to go to confession? And what do you lose when you don't make yerself available for the boy to confess that he's thinkin' of suicide? Boys don't do that in view of others, eh? By G2SS, you may not allow the use of tobacco products at any activity involving youth participants. So goin' to the Native American powwow is right out, eh? And goin' to the county fair, where's there's bound to be people smokin'. And how many good scouters do we all know who sneak out for a smoke? Of course it goes on and on. It's simply not possible to write a generic national rule that works everywhere, all the time. And like all human endeavors, sometimes mistakes are made or people with private agendas hijack the process for a bit (like da supposed rule about Laser Tag ). A society based on rules only survives if da rules are tempered by the judgment of good people. And if da people are good, we should respect their judgment, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with SR540. Can yeh give us a bit more to work with? I'm interested in how big the troop is, and whether it's growin' or shrinking. It would also help to know who the adults are who have voiced this concern. And some sense of what the "troop method" has looked like for them. Patrols do fragment a troop, eh? That's their point. They break things up into manageable groups for kids. Gives lots more kids leadership experience and independence. But it does feel like somethin' is missin' to adults. Kinda like some managers like to have big meetings all the time, eh? It may help 'em feel more "in touch" and let 'em talk more, but it isn't usually the best way for the workers to get things done.