Beavah

Here is your opportunity to tell the readers about your version of Pure Scouting.... let's take one example of the boy-run unit Yah, the best youth-run Scoutin' I've ever seen has been international. American Scouting is way too controllin' / rules-bound for the rest of da Scoutin' Movement. If yeh want to see how it's really supposed to be, go to Bill Hillcourt's native Denmark, or visit scouts in any of the Scout Associations that came more directly from the BP model. But in the U.S., here's one troop that did pretty well on the "boy run" bit, from a former district before we re-configurated some years back. Adults did: * In-troop JLT for a week every June. All PLs, APLs, troop positions expected to come. Other 1st class scouts interested in running for positions could request invitation from SPL with their PL's recommendation. * Once a month JLT "refresher training", usually with a fun outing or activity. Some "new ideas" introduced this way. * Recruiting adults for tasks when arm-twisting was involved, and keepin' adults in line. * Quiet coaching / SM minute, etc. * CO requested a couple of specific service projects each year, and did one adult-run fundraiser that provided funds for most capital equipment. * Financial & safety oversight, helpin' knock down barriers. * Merit Badge Counseling (except there was one boy who was an Extra Class HAM radio operator who counseled Radio MB, close as I could tell, and a couple youth BSA Lifeguards and HS Swim Team members seemed to be the only ones who counseled Swimming MB). * Other tasks as requested by the youth leaders. Youth did: * 20-minute PLC's after each troop meeting, but SPL routinely called PLC meetings on his own as needed, with no scouters present. * 6-month planning day at end of June JLT and a December weekend. Set all events, assigned events to patrols or individual PLC members. * Determined the activity budget and dues. QM decided on purchases less than $250. * Ran all fundraisers (except for adult arrangements like permits, space rental contracts). No popcorn sales, only work projects. * Did all safety planning, put together all driver maps (and assigned youth navigators to cars), did all meals by patrol. * Determined patrol membership. * Decided on "official" uniform. Designed own patrol patches, special awards. * PL or APL did all T-2-1 instruction & signoffs. SPL, ASPL, or TG sat on all T-2-1 BORs. JASM sat on Star/Life BORs. * PL's handed out T21 ranks at COHs. SPL handed out SL ranks. JASM handed out MBs. Patrols conducted opening/closing. * Regularly got together for informal activities. This unit had a large "scout shed" and youth leaders had keys, and could go and take out equipment after school, etc., without adult supervision. * Helped plan and conduct training for new ASMs. They were only a mid-sized troop, about 30 kids or so, but very active and "tight." Great kids. Not all of 'em made Eagle, but I'd venture to say each one was Eagle. All that havin' been said, I don't think this is the only or "pure" version of Scoutin'. And I don't see intelligent variation in method or desired outcome as a bad thing. This troop would not fit all boys/families, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm not qualified in Catholic theology eh? It's just an example. A colleague in a nearby council who is a COR for a Catholic parish explains it that they care much less than I typically do about "a Scout pays his own way." The emphasis is more on the Church/"community of God"'s role of service than the individual's role of work. "Each gives according to his ability and should take freely according to his need." He quotes from Vatican II documents, but I might say more salvation by Church than by personal conscience . Catholics never had much truck with John Calvin. A good example is that tuition for Catholic elementary schools never reflects a boy/family paying their own way. They're all heavily subsidized by the parish collection plate. So no surprise if they have that attitude toward the Scouting programs they run, eh? But the point is, again, that the goals of the CO are what counts in the BSA system. And the CO that uses the Scout Oath and Law as part of its youth program gets to interpret those words accordin' to their own lights. What it means to be "mentally awake" to a Catholic and a Fundamentalist are goin' to be different, eh? The rules of Courtesy are somewhat different in arabic/Islam (no left-handed Scout Handshakes, eh?). And on and on. We as Commissioners and BSA representatives don't get to tell everyone that we have a lock on what "good character" means. The opposite. They tell us what good character means, and we tell them how Scouting can be used to help. So if you're in the BSA, and you've got a serious question about aims/goals/character/Scout Spirit, you should talk to your CO, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da phrase "adding to the requirements" is a small one-sentence guideline out of several big books worth of stuff, eh? It does not trump every other rule, regulation, goal, aim, guideline, or article of common sense. It must be read in the bigger context. More emphasis is placed in the materials on ensuring kids learn, standards are met, and boys are able to do. But to answer your question in a book-hound way, the regs specifically grant the Council the authority to determine the method(s) used to check Eagle Scout references. Havin' the boy request reference letters is by far the most common.

I dont agree with the idea of the CO determining if the Scout meets some other criteria simply because it may not match anything Scouting. Nah, not some other criteria, Fuzzy. An LDS ward may have a view about "duty to God", though, and what it means. A VFW post may have some strong feelin's about "duty to country." The Catholic units have a different understandin' of Thrifty than some of the work-ethic Protestants, eh? The CO gets to interpret the meaning and priority of the elements of the Oath and Law, and thereby define what it means in their unit to have Scout Spirit. Didn't mean to confuse yeh, Buff. Just was suggestin' you chat with your CO and find out if they thought that this young man and his "get Eagle" approach met their goals and aims; their view of character and citizenship. What they wanted to hold up to the other boys and their members as the example of a successful scout in their program. I suspect that they're likely to back you up in your "gut feelin", eh? If so that matters a lot more than all us internet kibbitzers.

Yah, no reason to be concerned, eh? He should get a reference letter / reference from someone who knows his spiritual side. A friend, relative, teacher, whomever. Some of the best ones I've seen are from people or organizations a boy has done service for, especially if it was a longer-term commitment (Red Cross, soup kitchen, etc.). I encourage those now. He can also write about his belief in a "higher power" in his personal statement of goals and beliefs, if that's important to him. Yah, he should expect a question or two about it at his board, same as about duty to country or bein' Thrifty. But no big deal, eh? To reassure yourself, and the scout, place a call to your district advancement chair and get the scoop from the horse him/herself. Now, for boys who do belong to an organized church, the general guideline is that the recommendation/reference should come from an official of that church.

Yah, da "parents of" units are frowned on by the BSA, but have been allowed on a short-term basis largely because of the need/push to decharter public schools. And it's always weird to me to shop existing units to organizations. Not "by the book" as my fellow Beavah says. Prairie, is there a reason why you guys don't want a church as a sponsor? I think it's important to have a CO that matches the "character" of the unit. So if yours isn't religious, or the CO isn't "ecumenical", then that's important, eh? Nuthin' says a local business can't charter a unit. I know of a bunch. Best to be a small business with a long-time owner who likes scoutin', or a bigger business that offers child care type services to its workers. Somehow, they've got to have a reason to stick with it. Knights of Columbus have a fairly recent "national direction" to reach out and expand their programming for young people, young men in particular. They're a target in our council for possible new units. Nationally, they charter a lot of troops. Catholic units are usually pretty open to kids of many different faiths, the way most Catholic schools are. But that's a conversation you'd want to have with the Knights, eh? Local PTO perhaps? Yeh might call your Chamber of Commerce and explain what you're lookin' for. They often may have a notion or thought that you hadn't considered. Other fraternal organization? Moose? Elks? Grange? Most important thing is to find a good fit. CO's, in addition to providin' some resources, are a key ingredient to long-term unit stability/survival (least that's what my National figures say). So yeh want to find one that is a good foundation/anchor.

:) :) :) Yah, "poofy" is one of those technical Latin terms, eh? Requires three years of law school and the secret handshake before we explain it to yeh! Of course, it's probably just that I'm non compos mentis.

the other 99% of the hours making up his life. This post led me to thinkin' about how much time kids really do give to Scouting. Assumin' 8 hours of sleep per night, there are 112 hours available in a week, 448 in a month, 5824 in a year. Most Boy Scout meetings take 2 hours per week, includin' transportation time. Call it 40 meetings a year, 80 hours. One outing a month takes about two days of awake time, 32 hours. Call it 10 monthly outings, 320 hours. Summer camp takes 6 days of awake time, 96 hours. So for a basic, fairly active scout, we get 496 hours, plus some time buyin' gear, makin' menus, buying food, getting ready for outings, sewing on uniform stuff. And then add service hours. About 10% of his life is Scouting. (Not bad, though still way short of the average for television watching (20 hours per week, 1040 per year, or almost 20% by the time you add in movies.) Now add leadership responsibilities for Star, Life, Eagle. PLCs, TLT, NYLT, and MB's. Up to at least 15%. Now add OA, and high adventure activities. Up to 20% or more, I bet. In a more-active-than-average troop, 25%. Yah, safe to say we are a pretty big part of the "everyday life" of our scouts. We might even beat TV as a significant influence on our active scouts. And we rival school (8 hours per day *180 days = 25%, not counting homework and sports). That's a lot of time kids give us, eh? Humbling. We must work hard to make it worth their while. Of course, Mrs. Beavah would point out that the adults have to be there, too, and are probably givin' about 35% of their life for their "one hour a week."

I think you've got the right idea, Buff, even if yeh are a big furry cow and not a smart, good-lookin' critter that does structural engineerin' on rivers (go Beavahs!) In keepin' with the "authority" threads, though, "What does your Chartered Organization think?" The reason the BSA doesn't define the oath and law much is that it's a support organization whose job it is to help the CO/unit in their version of character development. Always remember you work for your CO, not da BSA (or the parents or the kids). So I'd suggest you sit down with the pastor/VFW president/PTO president and ask what s/he thinks is the important lessons of character that the scouting program should convey in the oath and law. What do they want to see in kids as they grow and get recognized for higher rank? And then work to do that in your program and who you advance to Eagle. That's where your Loyal duty lies, eh? And remember, too, when an EBOR considers Scout Spirit, they're lookin' for recommendations from home, school, church, work, etc. - the other pieces of a boy's everyday life. In the scheme of things, they're lookin' to the SM to report honestly on Scout Spirit from the boy's Scouting life.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I continue to be mystified by the fascination with this topic, and by the "well, then that means anybody can do whatever they want!" arguments. Yeh can't even find a dictatorship where the dictator can do whatever he wants, eh? That's not true here, either. It's a partnership. Partners should be respectful and friendly. Yeh just need to understand the role of each half of the partnership. From the Charter documents, on the role of the BSA: "The Boy Scouts of America is an educational resource program. It charters community or religious organizations or groups to use Scouting as part of their service to their own members, as well as the community at large. The BSA local council provides support service necessary to help the chartered organization succeed... The [bSA] council agrees to respect the aims and objectives of the organization, and offer resources ... to help in meeting those objectives." And, as evmori indicates, the CO gets to conduct its program according to its own policies and procedures as well as those of the BSA. Now, of course, if Scouting were to be truly standardized, then units would be governed only by the policies of the BSA. But instead the CO gets its policies first, since the BSA acknowledge that da CO owns and operates the unit. Legally, the CO bears the liability for the unit, and so legally, it must have control. The BSA routinely files to have its corporate self dismissed as defendant from scout unit lawsuits (and routinely succeeds in those petitions) because it does not claim authority for units or unit programs. Yah, the BSA acts as an insurer, but that's a common "outside contractor" service, eh? Charter language is by nature and design vague and poofy. To understand its intent, one must look at how it is viewed and practiced by both parties. And as we all recognize, CO's are given enormous latitude in how they use BSA program materials to serve their own youth ministry goals, and the BSA even assists with that process. The BSA spends no time or money on unit supervision or quality control, that's not a part of their business. It does not require purchase of the Insignia Guide so units can be uniform compliant; it does not even require purchase of a uniform. It sells those things as a program support service to the units that want 'em. And they're pretty popular, eh? Sure, sometimes one or the other (usually both) parties decide not to renew the contract for services. Same as any partnership. That's a decision to limit your services or market for the sake of "identity" or resources. Not the BSA's usual interest, eh, least outside of 3-G issues? We like "numbers" better. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

but how can his attitude be consistent to living the law and oath in your everyday life. I want the rewards and dont bother me with anything else. Ive got mine now you get yours. Yah, I think you answer your own question too. Mostly I expect the boy to think about the troop and community, not "getting Eagle" but "being Eagle." Not himself, but others. As SM, you have to think about the same thing, eh? Not just this boy, but the troop and community. Is this boy one that you want to hold up to the younger boys in the troop, and to the district/chartered org./community, as being an example of the best in Scouting? Is that a good or a bad lesson for others? Yah, meeting attendance by itself isn't a perfect indicator of that; a boy caring for his single mom with cancer isn't goin' to make many meetings, and may well be exactly the example you want to hold up for others. Such exceptions aside, it'd be hard to find another organization that claims to teach character by givin' its highest award to someone who doesn't show up, eh? Nuthin' damaged Scoutin' in the U.S. more than making recognition about collectin' empty requirements however yeh can. Our goal is not to help kids get Eagle. Our goal is to help kids become men. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If the BSA's role, or business model, or legal relationship does not have the authority for quality control over the use of its program and only exists to assist community agencies and serve them as the community agencies run a part of their youth outreach then how can the BSA tell a CO who can and can not be a member? Yah, big question, eh? One that's pretty controversial at the moment. And yah, sure, we've also seen a few council execs try to use the adult membership revocation to get rid of annoyin' oversight and whistleblowers, or just people they didn't like. That's what we call "corruption" eh? But sure, for a "big thing" that affects the BSA's public image and business, they can stop doing business with a CO. Same as any business that offers support and materials, eh? If yeh sell medical supplies, and you discover that one of your clients is usin' half of what you sell them to promote illegal drug activities, you don't want your name associated with that. So you refuse to sell to them anymore. No different with the BSA. No different with the CO, either - they can stop doin' business with the BSA just as easily, and for the same reasons. They no longer want to be associated. Yah, sure da BSA, or like in Eamonn's example, the Catholic Church, can deny services to anybody who is viewed as a sinner, eh? That just makes you a very small organization . But unlike the Catholic Church, the BSA is bound by its charter and bylaws to cooperate with community agencies, so they can't go it alone. And unlike the Catholic Church, its members have a controlling vote in the policies of the organization. In the BSA's case, the policies that the members set are that the BSA is to honor and respect the goals and aims of the CO, and offer Scouting resources in service of those goals. The current CO's also say they only want to be associated with the people who follow their view of the 3-G's. Bit of tension there, for sure. When it comes to program standardization, though, that's a non-starter, eh? BSA has no interest in limiting itself like that. Look at the recent program development efforts, like Venturing and Scouting and Soccer. They're all goin' the way of being "non standard and very flexible". Tryin' to come up with support materials to help CO's with everything from sports to hobbies to outdoors to ministry to social service. Doin' what they do to support CO's in their youth programs. Comin' up with new materials to better support organizations that were highly tweakin' the old materials. That's BSA Scouting.

Yah, I've been totally pulverizin' the dead horse tryin' to help folks understand the BSA's legal/business/services model. FScouter raised a different issue, which is more a philosophical one that several others seem to keep bringin' up - callin' another troop program "Not Scouting" because it doesn't adhere to somethin' the writer feels is important. I confess this frosts my toes a bit, but I'd also like to understand it since AFAIK this idea is unique to these forums, eh? There is no such thing as a CO designed program that happens to use some BSA materials (no purchase required) that can be called Scouting. All of us design our own programs, with our PLC, usin' some BSA materials, of course. But here's some interestin' examples. I know a Christian Academy in our district that charters a troop essentially just for the insurance and access to BSA camps for retreats. I know a couple of private high schools that charter Crews for essentially the same reason. BSA is happy to call them "Scouting" and count 'em among youth served. So it's not an issue for the BSA. And I'm happy to serve 'em as best I can as a district commish. Da more programs to help young people, the better. To me, though, I guess philosophically I wouldn't quite consider 'em Scouting, but I'm not sure why. They do Adult Relationships and some outdoors. There's the usual school/sports versions of youth leadership. Even uniform of the Class B/Venturing variety. They're definitely BSA members in good standin'. Maybe I miss the Oath/Law? Yah, but nobody ever really says the Venturing Oath, and I recognize Venturin' as Scouting. I think the biggest thing is I don't know as much about how to support 'em. The materials and trainin' I have are fairly limited in terms of the business they're runnin'. But then, I feel that way about Youth Ministry Crews, too. By contrast, international Scoutin' and some other scout Associations in the U.S. aren't part of the BSA, and do things much differently than the BSA (includin' girls and other G's). But I recognize 'em philosophically as Scouting. So I'm curious. For all you out there, What is Scouting?

Yah F. I understand what you're sayin'. I just disagree. To my knowledge, none of the gents in Irving with whom I'm familiar think about this the way you do. And from a practical and legal perspective, I just don't see what you see, eh? I think it's the wrong way to think about it. Insignia Guides aren't a required purchase, eh? Yer welcome to your opinion of course, so we'll agree to disagree, eh? What's important is that we all keep to the mission of servin' the kids, and lending a hand of friendly support to the many organizations and volunteers who do the heavy lifting. I have every confidence that you do that every day. I certainly try. Yours in humble service, Beavah

Yah, the answer depends, eh? What you do depends a lot on what environment you're campin' in. Eastern deciduous forest? Western arid or desert? Whitwater river corridor riparian shore? Summer? Winter? Yeh try to do what will damage the least. Some of the best helps for trying to decide what's best for the area you're campin' in you can get cheap from the Leave No Trace organization: For frontcountry camping:http://store.lnt.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=FC For backcountry areas: http://store.lnt.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=BL. In most areas, especially frontcountry, burying isn't a great strategy. It concentrates impact, makin' it hard for the local microbes to do their job quickly. Local critters will often dig up the area shortly after you leave, which leaves a mess and habituates the critters to humans=food, which makes 'em a nuisance. And of course, you disturb the soil there. As a loose generic suggestion, I'd offer: 1. Learn to cook portions small so that everything gets eaten; learn to clean with just the water you need, no extra. 2. Eat everything (or, bag and pack out leftovers). Leave no noodles! 3a.Best: Clean with hot water, drink swill water, deposit nothin'. 3b.Next best: Strain grey water, pack out scraps. (1)If at a developed campsite, put grey water in container and toss in dumpster, or.. (2)Sump grey water in fire pit (3)If in backcountry, "fling" and distribute greywater widely.

But there has to be an end point, doesnt there? Sure. As FScouter so stridently points out, the BSA owns and licenses the program materials & symbols. The endpoint is when the CO or the BSA decide to no longer license the program materials. But, to misquote a legal aphorism, "Hard cases make for bad understanding." The BSA is very clear about it's business, in all of its formal documents and its allocation of resources and its evaluation mechanisms. And it simply isn't the "central Authority" that a few seem to dearly wish for. Most of the rest of us think that's a good thing, though we acknowledge the shortcomings along with the benefits. Yah, and I appreciate the sentiment that many have that the BSA should reflect the military more, especially those who have served. Even agree with it some. Few doubt that the armed forces as a whole have operated more honorably than the civilian leadership the past decade. Happily, because the BSA isn't a "central authority", units that so desire are able to be crisp and highly regulated about the uniform and policy. The BSA even supports such units/CO's by publishin' detailed insignia guides and inspection sheets. Support is their job, eh? More power to yeh! Just recognize that the Insignia Guide is a piece of support material, just like program helps and Woods Wisdom and MB pamphlets and religious award pamphlets. No purchase required.

There is no provision in BSA for two uniforms in a troop. The BSA is a program materials, supplies, and contract services provider for community organizations. They only see a services market for one uniform in the program; that's probably accurate. However, they acknowledge units that have different "field" and "activity" uniforms, and as we've demonstrated, they have no charter, bylaws, or business interest in the matter. The BSA does not "grant authority" to do anything; the unit is an independent entity that operates on its own authority. The BSA acknowledges and respects that, and agrees to support it. The only, quite natural proviso is that the unit agrees not to compromise the BSA's public image or market in the way it uses BSA provided materials. One of the purposes of the uniform method is to show all members of a troop as equals, all part of the same team. Departing from that and putting one group of boys in a separate uniform sets that group apart from the rest of the troop, creating a class distinction or clique one group from the other. It seems counter productive to the method. This is a reasonable argument. It provides one person's view of the uniform method, and of character. There are other views, and other notions of character. Some may want to emphasize individual growth and progress, rather than sameness. Some may believe it's important for leaders to be readily identified in a big troop. Others in pursuit of "equality" may object to rank badges or patrol patches or position patches (after all, sports teams don't have such things on their uniforms, creating a "class distinction" between team members). Some think age-based patrols create cliques; some think they promote friendships. Whatevah. The BSA, as a resources provider, doesn't care. They just want to provide resources that help units/COs pursue their organization's view of character. Whether green shirts really help retention is relevant only to that unit (or to other units who decide to try it). For the BSA, tweaks and adaptations are an acknowledged part of the American Scouting Way. They're how Scouting works in this country. If yeh want "standard," yeh should join the suits that are petitioning to end the BSA monopoly. I'm sure there'd be a niche market for a highly standardized, centrally directed scouting organization.

And this troop needs to respect that and the fact that the green uniform below to Venturing, not them. Yah, so this is a good example that ties into my last post on the "authority" thread. LongHaul says that this uniform adaptation helps keep kids in his troop's program. Helps give an incentive to advance, makes older boys feel special and want to contribute more, whatever. The troop committee and adult leaders approve. So emb, how many boys are you willin' to lose to keep your uniform guideline implementations "pristine?" How many adults? How many adults and churches and schools are you willing to tell that their view of "character" (Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.) is wrong because they don't put as high a value on identical clothing as you? Are yeh willing to dump this 95 year old troop entirely? Yah, the BSA doesn't care, eh? They don't spend a second of time or a cent of money worryin' about it. They're in the business of providin' program materials and support services. And they're happy to keep doing that for LongHaul's unit. Bet they don't think twice about includin' those green-shirted lads among "youth served." Da BSA's Charter, Bylaws, and business are happy with "big and diverse." They're unwilling to be "strict and standardized" because that also means "smaller." So if LongHaul's troop like it and is doin' good by kids, and the BSA doesn't care and happily renews their charter, etc. Why do you care? I guess if yeh want every other troop spit-and-polished like yours at da camporee flag ceremony, yeh gotta find a different Scout Association, eh?

if others try the same thing they run the risk of having their charter revoked The BSA of course has the right not to sell materials to or contract for support services with a CO, the same way the CO is free not to contract with the BSA. But even here, the authority lies primarily with the CO. Do yeh know how hard it is in the BSA system to revoke a charter? Can't be done by a council, has to go all the way to National. Except in cases where their business reputation would be publicly compromised, the BSA sticks with CO's. And besides, we all recognize that the BSA commits not a single dollar or professional to any real sort of unit program evaluation or supervision anyways, so there's almost never a reason nonrenewal would even come up. The reverse is not true. CO's can drop charters at a whim. The number of CO's that have dropped BSA charters vastly exceeds the number of charters the BSA has ever dropped. So when a CO wants a coed program, they leave and go to Campfire USA. Just lost a private school cub pack in our district to that switch. But in terms of what LDS does in terms of what folks on this list like to call program "tweaks", that is how BSA Scouting is really supposed to be used. LDS isn't doing Scouting "different" or "by special dispensation." They're doing real live honest-to-goodness BSA Scouting! Dat's what the Charter and Bylaws and business model all mean. While a part of me sympathizes with CNY's and others honest assessment that there are units out there that don't offer a good program, and it might be better if BSA were more centralized/standardized, there is a cost to that. In order to do the "McDonald's model franchise" the costs of buy-in and operation are much higher. All training required. Continuing education required. Real unit leader skill & ability qualifications that not every unit leader can pass. Consequently higher costs recruiting. Real unit performance evaluations (with consequent increase in professional staff and charter costs). Units required to buy BSA materials, uniforms, etc. All CO's required to believe and advance the "official BSA version" of "character." The result would be a more standardized program. The result would also be a much, much smaller program. The BSA has been very successful with its current, flexible business model, and has repeatedly chosen "large and highly tweaked" over "small and standardized." It's been such a successful model that Scouting is still a major national presence and deeply ingrained in our culture. Do don't expect da BSA to change their approach anytime soon. If yeh want a central Authority scouting model, yeh have to look elsewhere.

Nuthin' wrong with your perceptions of how BOR's should go, Lisa'bob. It should be a progression. TF should be just enough to let a boy shine; 2nd class a bit more involved. 1st Class he's headed into leadership roles, so some focused open-ended questions are good to add. Star the boy has had his first run at leadership and some of the required merit badges, and questions should begin to be about character, recognizing that he's just developin' understanding. By Life, a boy is a long way into the program, and we don't have him for that much longer. He should be 50-75% of the way to what we hope to see in an Eagle Scout, eh? So the board should reflect that, and be 50-75% of what an Eagle Board is. This way, our expectations grow with the boy, eh?

Good thoughts, CNY. Yeh should join the "Authority" thread. The Council and District are fully aware that this is happening but none are willing to step in and do something about it. The thing you need to understand, and that I keep trying and failing to explain, is that the Council and District really don't have any authority to "step in" as you suggest. That's not the BSA's role, or business model, or legal relationship. They provide materials/training, contract with units to provide some camp experiences, and are available for help and suggestions if asked (and if they have an effective Commissioner Corps, which often ain't the case). That's it. So it really is up to the units/CO's. That's the way the BSA works. I think you're right. Many leaders are old and tired. Many are parents who are "filling a space" without much real experience or deep long-term enthusiasm. Some just don't get it, or shouldn't be leadin' kids of a particular age. Good program delivery at the unit level is by no means guaranteed. I personally think the BSA could pay a lot more attention to its side of the Charter agreement, in terms of providing service and support. Unlike BrianBuf, I don't think they need to change the program much. I think they need to change their methods of deliverin' support and service a lot. We're still usin' the support structure developed more than 50 years ago! And as you mention, it ain't workin' all that well.

I'm likin' Eamonn's rambles. Let me try. Membership in the BSA is a privilege not a right. The BSA owns the program. No disagreement, if by "program" we mean its copyrighted and trademarked materials. If we mean the actual youth programs that are out there, they are owned by the CO's. When we sign up as leaders we agree to deliver the program. Actually, we agree to follow the Charter, Bylaws, Rules and Regs. Those are specific documents that I bet not one in a hundred scouters have read. And they're very limited in their scope. More importantly, we agree to deliver the program desired by the CO/unit, and under their direction. We work for them. Legally, we owe them our fiduciary duty, not the BSA. I might be very good looking and very gifted (Don't I wish!!) but I don't have the authority to change the program. Perhaps not, but your unit/CO certainly do. Almost everything about the delivery of program to youth is under their direction and authority (and is their, and your, personal liability), not the BSA. While I wish more CO's took a more active role in Scouting, I kinda think if we were honest we'd have to admit that most Executive Officers know diddle about the program and their big concern is what shape the meeting hall is left in when the Scouts go home. Yah, so they delegate their authority to the unit committees and scouters, eh? Same as they delegate their authority for their other youth ministries, or building maintenance, or whatnot. Da only real surprise would be if they didn't delegate these things. That would be one overworked IH, eh? Most of the changes/ alterations/ tweaks that are made to the program are made with the very best of intentions. In another thread we have the Troop that has changed the uniform. Some forum members don't see this as a bad thing. It seems that when we read of the Scout who is being grilled and retested at a BOR, we think this is not the way it should be done. I think one of the hardest things is that every scouter is proud of his/her own program and way of doing things, eh? We all want others to do it "our way" (which is by definition the "right way" ). But if we're really honest, we recognize that there are lots of very successful troops doing things very differently from each other. Some may ask more skills questions at BOR's. Some may tweak the uniform. Some may charter different units by age group and make a bunch of other modifications. It's very clear that the BSA thinks this is OK. They welcome and assist with LDS modifications. They make no effort at all to ensure unit/CO compliance with program details. It's OK with the BSA. It's only that every scouter is proud of his/her own program, and wants others to do it "our way." It's a good thing to be proud of the job we do. It's a bad thing when we let that turn into judgments that others aren't "real Scouting." Or assume we know what's right for their CO/unit and their kids. I'm not sure when a Scout unit who strays from the program ceases to be a Scouting unit? I'm never sure why this is even a worthwhile question. Smacks too much of exclusivity and judgment where brotherliness in Scouting is more appropriate. But the answer in the BSA is "at the point when the CO/unit or BSA choose not to renew the charter." And not a second before. Even then, they might still be Scouting, in the sense of the worldwide youth movement / GSUSA / BP-Scouts, etc. We should still consider them brothers and sisters.

Yah, Calico's is a good point. I guess I'm expecting that the coaching on how to talk with adults and express respect and a good attitude happen at an earlier stage. Progressively, through T-2-1 and especially through the demands and support in doing a POR for Star and Life. Four prior boards, 5 (hopefully more) SM conferences, 10 months having to work collaboratively with adults and youth leaders. By the time they're up for Life, it seems like (barring specific learning/emotional handicaps) that hurdle shouldn't be too big, eh? But that's an assumption on my part. Yeh gotta know the kid to decide. I tell units most of the time that holdin' a kid on Eagle because of unresolved long-term behaviors isn't fair, eh? That was their problem to help the boy start to address before he earned Star or Life, if not earlier. And Eagle becomes too emotionally charged for kids, parents, and bureaucrats. To use the scoutin' program well to help kids grow, yeh gotta be consistent all the way along.

Yah, sometimes I feel we just do a lousy job with training, eh? The Annual Charter Agreement (28-182R) describes exactly the role of the BSA as I have outlined it above. Nowhere does it say that "A CO agrees to use the BSA program as it is presented." Instead, we have: "The Boy Scouts of America is an educational resource program. It charters community or religious organizations or groups to use Scouting as part of their service to their own members, as well as the community at large. The BSA local council provides support service necessary to help the chartered organization succeed... The [bSA] council agrees to respect the aims and objectives of the organization, and offer resources ... to help in meeting those objectives." The adaptations that our friends in LDS wards make to the BSA educational resources are exactly how the BSA is designed to work and in fact how the BSA is required to work by its congressional charter and its own bylaws. That the BSA helps provide materials to help LDS be successful with their adaptation is exactly what the BSA is supposed to do. Authority for runnin' the program rests with the units/CO's. The BSA provides materials and support. I imagine LDS units get tired of the way they get belittled by fellow Scouters for usin' the program the way it is supposed to be used. Shame on us for doin' that. They're our brothers, and good folks. If you want a more "standardized" form of Scouting, you need to go find another scouting association or maybe start a JROTC program in your area. That's just not what da BSA does, eh?

Yah, VeniVidi gave a very coherent thoughtful, and spot-on answer, eh? I won't try to recap it, I'll just be more blunt. Just say "No." The core principle in the BSA bylaws and guidelines for the advancement program is that it used for education, and that boys must be held to a standard. If the boy didn't meet your standard, you have an obligation of honor and principle to defer rank advancement until he does. Honor and principle don't cave for real or imagined beliefs about what districts or councils will do. If your son "passed" his math class with a D- (knowing he has all the ability to be an A-B student), would you throw a party, call him up in front of friends, neighbors, and family members for applause, and present him an award? Or would there be "consequences" for your son instead? Do what you know is right. If troops did that on a regular basis for Star and Life, we'd see far fewer forum postings about problematic Eagles, poor youth leadership, and lower membership.