Beavah

Yah, I'm going to disagree here. The requirement is "Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched," with the limited exception for one (and only one) week of BSA summer camp. Adirondack shelters are cabins. They are professionally designed and installed roofed buildings with an open side. They don't build the same experience of choosin' a site, and settin' up a tent to be secure for the weather. No subtractin' from da requirements, at least not without a good reason. If the campin' regulations in your state require you to only use the building shelters, and your guys don't get to do any other campin' because your program won't support it, then ya gotta do what you gotta do. Other than that, bring a tent, eh?

A lotta troops establish such a "policy" as a way of pushin' boys to finish. Works pretty well for a lot of kids. Deadlines make the world go 'round. Reality is that it's up to da Merit Badge Counselor. If a kid keeps workin' with the same counselor, it's not so much of an issue. But most counselors, especially at camps, don't stay around that long. A new counselor does not have to accept a partial from another counselor; it's up to whoever signs for the final badge to make sure that all of the requirements are met. Most good counselors will at least check on kids' understandin' of "old" partials.

I've never figured out why anyone at district or council would bother with blue cards if they got a valid advancement report. What a waste of good staff or volunteer time, eh? Most signatures are illegible, lots of troops go to out-of-council camps, few districts keep well updated MBC lists. Blech. Trust da unit scouters with da patches. We're trustin' 'em with the kids after all.

I'm not particularly partisan here, I've seen troops work well both ways, and things done poorly usin' each method. I just like the mixed age approach better; the "feel" is better to me, with all boys rather than just designated Troop Guides participatin' in helpin' younger ones in their patrols. What I have found to be the overwhelming desire of the boys is that they like to be in a patrol of their peers. Usually, that means boys of similar ages but not always. Yah. Boys are conservative critters, and tend to stay with what they know, eh? Nowhere else in their school and sports life do they get a chance to mix and play with kids of different ages, especially now that neighborhood "free play" has gone the way of the dodo. But this is just a Green Eggs and Ham issue. Most of 'em wouldn't choose to eat foil meals either unless someone made 'em try it. I agree dat the boys should be involved in the patrol decisions in some way or another, so that best buddies are kept together, most brothers are kept apart and such. I also disagree with your conclusions. If you have mixed age patrols, there is no need for troop guides - thus less youth leadership. If you have a group of 11 to 12 year olds in a patrol, one of them gets blessed with a leadership experience (something all should get for 30 days if you follow the BSA program). Yah, I'm with Eagledad here. I've rarely seen the new scout PL thing be anything other than uncomfortable. There aren't many 11-year-olds ready to tell their best buddy he needs to clean the latrine. I think it's even tough for a 2nd year and some 3rd year patrol leaders to hold their own in a PLC meeting with the PLs from older boys patrols. They don't have enough to "give" yet to be able to contribute to troop planning, and they naturally don't want to stand out. Dat means that the troop guides and ASMs do most of it. The other downside to mixed age is patrol competitions. Yah, sure, everyone can point to the one time the 1st or 2nd year boys beat an older patrol, but let's be honest. With same-age patrols, most real patrol competition doesn't work nearly as well.

Yah, packwife. I hear ya. I'm an old grey beavah, and the notion of new scout patrols and kids havin' to be with same-age peers all the time is one of those newfangled things. Around here probably 3/4 of the troops do NSP and age stratified patrols. As someone here mentions, they always seem to be re-formin' and re-configurin' their patrols because of numbers issues. Seems like their kids are a bit "young for their age" because the young ones don't really have the experience and example of workin' alongside older boys all that much. About 1/4 of the troops still follow the older BSA system of "permanent" mixed-age patrols, which are often geographical (kids who live close to each other). I think the younger kids learn a lot by osmosis and example havin' to mix, and that gives the 7th graders and 8th graders younger guys to watch out for, which is a good thing. The PLC then becomes the older scout leadership core/"senior patrol." This system also makes it more natural for the higher-ranked scouts to earn leadership credit in positions of responsibility. Some of these do a new scout thing for a few months as a transition, but merge the new boys in under the patrol leadership of older boys in a fairly short time. Different strokes. Plusses and minuses to each method. I think age-stratified patrols are more comfortable for adults who want to do more leadin' themselves. If yeh put a parcel of 11 or 12 year-olds all together, it requires more adult "presence" for control and safety. It's also more akin to what da parents and boys are used to from school. I like the "feel" of the mixed-age-patrol troops a lot better, especially the level of youth leadership and independence of their patrols, but also the friendships that form easily across age lines.

SR540, I'd encourge you to rethink your camelback policy, eh? Our experience has been that being able to sip whenever they felt like it (rather than stop and dig out a water bottle when being told) greatly increases the amount of water kids and adults drink. Da problem then is fillin' up the camelbacks. For funscout's son, he could have been sippin' without fear of disrupting the ceremony. funscout, the history of heat illness you describe merits some further investigation. Yah, your son may be more sensitive than others, but by the time he's checkin' out the other boys should be on the edge or at least pretty durn uncomfortable. There's either a big behavioral difference (drinkin' a lot less, wearin' different clothes, bein' lots more physically active, not gettin' enough salt or carbohydrates) or there might be an underlyin' medical condition which merits some additional testing and follow-up with your physician. It's at least worth lookin' into a bit more.

Yah, paper Eagles are a sadness eh? Paper Eagles are always based on paper Star and Life ranks, though. Stoppin' a kid at Eagle is often a poor way to address some real program deficiencies at the unit. So at least be willin' to entertain the notion that the district advancement chair also intends to work with the commissioner staff and do some follow-up with the unit in a courteous and kind way. Yeh don't mention whether your council does district-level or unit-level Eagle Boards. At the unit level, the district representative has no authority to ask anybody to leave. At the district level, it's an interestin' question I suppose, but clearly discourteous to the two members "ejected" and contrary to the spirit of the rules. DAC's in my experience are sorta odd ducks. They really do care, but they get a bit trippy sometimes. I'm not aware of any way to appeal a positive decision by a BOR. Eagles naturally have to be approved by "National" but that's just based on the application form and is rubber-stamp automatic. Two routes of follow-up for the ejected members, if they feel it's in the best interest of the program to pursue things a bit (and if someone else is ready and willing to take over as DAC). One is a complaint (appeal?) to the council advancement committee and SE (SE has to sign Eagle applications for the council). That's gotta happen right away. The other is to the district committee/district chair, which appoints (and can remove) the district advancement chair (or pull him gently aside for a conversation). That's best done in a month or so, after some coolin' off. Of course, you could always call da Tower of Power, eh?

Just da next trainin' step, eh? Seemed like the thing to do to continue to improve at this interestin' scouting stuff. I confess that the woodbadge "in crowd" was a bit off-putting. I didn't care much for that district clique at the time. But the trainin' was fun and useful, and more than half of the participants became good friends and resources. Tho I still don't know about those Antelopes....

Bring the right adults, eh? Not the bellowers, da sort that like to play Euchre with some boys. Bring a set of earplugs. Those other dastardly adults all snore! Gettin' enough sleep is important to keepin' everybody happy. Help the SPL to gently enforce sleep time most nights. If yer in our neck o' the woods, bring some bug netting, eh? Follow Eagledad's advice and have a Troop program for camp, don't (just) rely on the camp program. Better yet, have a Troop program and a patrol program for each patrol, where they get to do their own thing. Wednesday night is a great time for somethin' different and special, includin' some comfort food for younger boys. Find a camp with a fun staff, and a program director that sets the right tone. I'm not fond of the constant sugar-stream we feed most boys in camp, but an occasional ice cream is a good thing. Figure out and manage around your camp's MB scheduling scheme, whatever it is. Bring lots of cool, fun toys with you.

Yah, Lisa'bob, I'm with whoever said "your son should ask his patrol leader." But for some quiet addled adult info, I've never known a camp to do more than request attire. All "enforcement" is left to the troops. Around most camps during the day, scouts wear whatever they want in terms of shirts and pants (barring inappropriate slogans on T-shirts). Some troops will require their boys to wear troop or scouting-related T's, but they're a minority. I'm old fashioned enough that I like to see boys in full activity uniforms for flag ceremonies (and therefore for breakfast and dinner right afterward). But then I remember my pet triceratops.

The "Tower of Power?" I'm still rollin' on da floor laughing. Senor Lawson does have a bad habit of takin' calls from Little League moms and undermining volunteers and council officials, rather than lettin' things come in an orderly way up the chain. But even he's going to get wise the 2nd or 3rd time you call. Ultimately, all scoutin' is local. National is free to give patches to whomever they want, but no volunteer is compelled to give time to your son or your family, or to any other boy for that matter. If you lose very many adults, you lose the program for all boys.

Where was da SM, eh? Was he not at camp? It would naturally be the SM's place to gently direct/redirect the ASMs. A good lesson that if the SM's not in camp, one of the ASMs should be appointed as "SM for the week" to make "final authority" decisions with adults. Everyone deserves some understandin' for occasional boneheaded moves. I certainly have made my share. But there's a need for eventually recognizing boneheaded moves after the heated moment has passed, eh? Even so, I'm inclined to be forgiving of mistakes that don't form a pattern. But the SM and CC should be informed quietly as a matter of course, since they are in a position to track patterns of behavior. Unit leaders or assistants who do this kind of thing regularly merit a quiet coffee with the CC and COR inviting them to serve in a different capacity.

Yah, Dozy. I think we all understand that you're upset by the current state of affairs in your troop, eh? But don't shoot the messengers. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The BSA training syllabus (NLE/Troop specific) gives someone at best a cursory overview of the Boy Scout program. Understanding it takes years of practice and experience; appreciating its flexibility and the variety of successful troops takes years more. And we're all still learnin'. You tell us that you are the only one trained in your unit, but then you also tell us that the former District Commissioner is on the committee? I think you have to be open to the notion that maybe, perhaps, that DC with years of experience (and training that you've never seen) might possibly understand the program more than you think... or perhaps more than you can judge at this point in your own learning. One year and SM basic isn't enough to really be quotin' things at the many people who have lots more training and experience runnin' successful units.

Yah, wildhog. Very difficult to deal with these things after the fact, eh? Bullies tend to be very accomplished at hidin' their activities from adults. So I wouldn't automatically discount Scott's tale. At the same time, the (far) more common behavior pattern is the one you describe, where a boy tweaks the noses of other boys, gets the natural reaction, then runs to mom. Call it "little brother behavior." I'd isolate kids and gather information first. Meet with your PL's, SPL, ASPL individually or in small groups and find out what they saw. The kids see what goes on when adults aren't watchin'. I'd also talk to the other younger guys in Scott's patrol and in the troop. They see what goes on when even the older boys aren't watchin'. Trust the kids. It might take a bit of prompting for you to get it out of them (big taboo against "ratting"), but they know the score on bullying better than any adult. Once you know the score, I'd meet with Harry & Scott (and their parents) separately. The parents should be observers, not participants. Chances are you'll catch one or both in falsehoods or half-truths. Then respond appropropriately based on the evidence. Be very firm, though... both boys should hear thunder even if they're not struck by lightning, eh? You want both the perception and reality that you're taking this very seriously, and that if it continues in the troop they will not continue in the troop. Six months "probation" can be a good tactic, as long as you're willing to follow-through with a suspension or expulsion for a probation violation. Lastly, document, document, document. Write up the complaint. Write up what each boy and adult told you. Write up the notes from the interviews. Write up the results. File it all, and follow-up with a written letter to each boy/family, with a more generic letter to the whole parent body. Far better for you to go overboard than underboard in makin' a "big deal" investigation & response. Real bullies deserve a full response, and false accusers are often scared straight by the full formal investigation, interviews, and thunder.

I was surprised that they recommended any kind of activity that involved singling out the new scouts and having them do something different than the others. Yeh mean like putting them in a new scouts patrol? I still think the worst hazing-like activity is the first day swim check at camp. I do prefer pranks that get played on everybody, startin' with the older boys. If the young ones see the older guys get "pranked" and respond with laughter, then when later it happens in a "light" way to them, they have a great story of fun and triumph over adversity to tell for weeks. Don't really care for the smoke-shifter and shore line stuff, though. Too much like takin' advantage of the ignorant at their expense.

the Scoutmaster is responsible for advancement. It would be irresponsible of him to let the boy go off on his own and make the wrong choices...Not all scouts are able to discern a timeline for their advancement... that's up to the SM to keep on target with....the Scout is not responsible for his own advancement, he is guided by an adult who is ultimately responsible. Urp. Yah. One vote here for "I disagree." It would be irresponsible for an adult to let a boy go off and make the wrong choices about, say, driving while intoxicated. But da whole point of scouting is to provide an environment where a boy can go off on his own and make choices - right and wrong - that are his own, and learn from them, in an environment where the consequences are significant but small. Earning or not earning a patch is a small consequence. Advancement is a tool, a method. It is not a goal. The boy, not the adult, should be "ultimately responsible" for his own advancement. To do anything else is doing him a disservice. So, it all depends on what freedoms you allow the scouts... is it total or is it guided freedom? It should be freedom with (adult) friendship. The guidance comes in how to do things, ethics in action, how to communicate as a leader, etc. Not in creating advancement timelines. Advancement is a method, not a goal. Advancement is a method, not a goal. Advancement is a method, not a goal....

Bottom line. I would expect the BSA Advancement Committee Guidelines to say something like, parents "should" not sit on the BOR. Vice saying parents "may or must" not sit on the BOR. In fact: Unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's board of review. (ACP&P #33088D p. 29). Bottom line, use common sense and consistent values. Avoid the reality or the appearance of impropriety or favoritism. In a five-boy startup troop, do what you need to do. I'd suggest bringing in outsiders in the same way you would for an EBOR, rather than using relatives.

Dozy, I think you're gettin' a little too involved with your own son's advancement, eh? This really isn't a question you should be involved with at all. This is a question that your son should ask his Camping MB counselor. The campin' MBC's job is to interpret the requirements so as to best develop your son's character, fitness, and citizenship. Don't take this important adult interaction away from your boy. 1) if a scout goes to a jamboree with his dad, and camps, but not with a unit, does that count toward a camping MB? That's up to the Camping MBC to figure out with your son. If your son went to National Jambo, it wasn't with his dad, it was with your council's contingent. Most MBC's would accept that. If your son just went camping with his dad, many MBC's would be reluctant to accept that, at least for more than a day or two, since it doesn't usually include all of the elements of scout camping. Just like most MBC's would be reluctant to accept a week of YMCA camp. 2) can the scout do his swimming merit badge requirements without the MB counselor present? and on his honor tell the MB counselor, "yep, I did the requirements"? That's up to the MBC, but I doubt many MBC's would allow it. The requirements are "show" and "demonstrate" and such, which requires showing or demonstrating to somebody. Now, if the boy presented a Red Cross Lifesaving credential, or the MBC got a phonecall from the boy's swim coach, that's a different matter. Most MBC's I expect would accept the boy demonstrating the requirements to another experienced, unrelated adult. But it's still OK for the MBC to expect the boy to demonstrate to the counselor in person. So, if it takes a potential Eagle scout 5 years to achieve a 20 night Camping MB badge, then it takes him 5 years, or the SM and the CM need to reevaluate their camping schedule and make some 2 nighters every now and again. Five years to get 20 nights out? Yah, it's time for da troop to look at its program, eh? Most boys in most troops can fulfill the 20 nights requirement in under a year. A troop with such a weak campin' program needs some real program assistance. However, I will be going over the books to see if I'm in error or if this should be just a subjective judgment call AND unfortunately, not everything is spelled out neatly in the manuals. There are always people who want to be pink-book lawyers. I would encourage you not to be one of them, unless the values you intend to teach children are to complain and file lawsuits any time anyone tells you "no." We are runnin' a youth program here, nothin' more. Resist the urge to be a Little League mom. In Scouting, ultimately everything is a judgment call. It's volunteers tryin' to do their best to help kids grow and bloom, and to instill in them good character and values. If you don't trust the volunteers in your son's program, or if they don't share your values, then you need to find a different troop or youth program. Tryin' to make 'em do it your way will never be successful, and won't teach your son the values of respect and kindness that I'm sure you want him to learn.

I'd just like to know how you SM's feel about being over-ridden by your Committee? OR, does this not happen to you? Most units, boys pass BOR's most of da time. Most units, most of the time, if a boy doesn't advance, it's because the SM gave a wink and a nudge to the BOR that this boy needed a "no" in order to force him to work harder, because the SM wasn't gettin' through to the boy on his own. In all good units, at some point a BOR comes back at the SM, either by not advancin' a boy, or by advancin' the boy but discussin' perceived deficiencies with the SM. Not frequently, but enough to fulfill the committee's role in oversight and program quality. Otherwise everything slowly degenerates into advancement mills, eh? As a commish, I once sat in on a 2nd class BOR where it was discovered that the boy really didn't understand 2nd class 1st aid. The boy admitted it, and after talkin with the SM, the committee realized they needed to get their adult leaders more first aid trainin', because the adult leaders didn't know enough to teach it well. Committee paid for the boy, his PL, SM, and ASM to do a first aid class together (and later paid for instructor training for da ASM). Boy passed 2nd class with flyin' colors and a lot more confidence two months later. Boy's friends came to him to help learn/study 1st Aid for their 2nd Class requirements, and worked harder on really learnin'. Troop became a lot stronger. Dat's the way committee oversight and a negative BOR decision are supposed to work, eh? So in da case you mention, Dozy, I think the SM should fume and stomp a bit (quietly, at home), get over it, and then make sure he's clear on the committee's expectations. They're right, testin' for MB's should be individual at least, and if durin' the course of the BOR the boy really had difficulty communicatin', or did not show that he had really served as a leader in a POR, that's a worthwhile thing to address. Then the SM should get with the boy, apologize for not catchin' the issue himself, and then work with the boy to achieve a flat-out, knock-their-socks off success in a month or two. That'd be a great lesson in citizenship and character for all da boys, eh? And the communication/interview skills the boy learns in the process will be a gift to him for the rest of his life.

1) Is it a Conflict of Interest if an Assistant Scoutmaster is also the Advancement Coordinator? The Advancement Chair is a member of da Troop Committee, and should be registered as an MC (member of committee). In the BSA, unit leader (SM) and assistant unit leader (ASM - "SA") cannot be dual registered as committee members (MC). This also makes sense, because the committee is supposed to be providing support and oversight for the unit leaders. So in my reading, your CC is correct, an ASM advancement chair is not in keepin' with the spirit or the letter of the system. That havin' been said, if it works for you, it works. Some units choose to register a lot of ASMs, so if one has the time like Ed to do this, who cares, eh? As long as yeh all are extra-careful about the conflict potential. But I'd say it's within the CC's purview to require separation of these roles. Is it a Conflict of Interst if a Scoutmaster signs off his own sons book? It's a bad idea, and can lead to all kinds of misunderstandin' and grief. There's no national rule, but many units/CO's have unit-level policies against it at the Boy Scout level. Most good SM's and ASM's avoid it like the plague. Some councils also impose restrictions, like limiting da number of MBs a boy can earn from one person. 3) Is it a Conflict of Interest that a Committee Chair cannot sign his own son's Eagle application? Not so much, because da CC's signature is really supposed to reflect the approval of the whole unit committee (by vote or common assent). For a dad to sign without the approval of the unit committee would be a dishonest thing to do. What do you mean by?: The Scout has no "right" to select his MB counselor except from choices offered by the SM. FScouter means exactly what he says. In the BSA's system, the SM, not the scout, chooses the MB counselor (and whether to allow a boy to work on a MB at all). A scout can make a request, of course, for a particular counselor. But the SM can say "no." This is an important part of the system, to ensure that the unit leaders know what's goin' on, and remain "in the loop" on youth protection and quality of experience for the boys. Most districts, in fact, have policies of not releasing the MB counselor list to anyone but SM's, and some get a bit peeved when someone gives a list to a boy. The SM is not gettin' the support he needs from the COR/committee Sounds more like disagreement over values and mission than lack of support or "dead" committee, eh? In disagreements over values and mission, it's the SM's job to follow the lead of the committee and CO, or resign if he can't. In the event of a dead committee, I'd encourage the SM to recruit a new COR and some new committee members, and then go to the IH (institutional head - the head of the CO) to approve them.

this "good" scout comes along and is made a victim in their power struggle Dozy, don't take this the wrong way, eh? But I think you need to own your part of this issue. It's not "their power struggle." If you're honest, you need to say it's "our power struggle." For da most part, the stuff yeh mention is fairly ordinary bad scouting. A SM or CC's kid slidin' by a bit without personal motivation because mom/dad are doin' the motivatin'; a kid who doesn't really want to be at camp maneuverin' to be sent home. While the proper response for an 11-year-old doin' that is to keep him in camp and be supportive; the proper response for a 17-year-old Eagle is to send him home. SM blew that call; shrug and move on, or volunteer to be SM. You have a unit with a lot of challenges - ScoutReach, an autistic boy, etc. You simply can't serve those kids well if the adults are locked in a shootin' match with each other. All of you are hurtin' kids. Yeh need to take a deep breath and decide whether continuin' down this adult scortched earth path is really more important than the kids are. I return to my original suggestion. Bind and gag all of the adults, and let them watch da kids resolve these issues. The boys know whether a kid is really Star, or really Eagle. They know whiney behavior at camp when they see it. Given a bit of room, their social pressure teaches a better lesson than any poor adult gatekeepin'. All your adults need to retire to neutral corners and get out of the way. One more suggestion, though. If Advancement Method isn't workin' for yeh in terms of developing character because the adults can't handle it, then drop Advancement altogether. No boy can earn any rank for at least a year. Better to serve the aims of character and citizenship than to hold onto a method which isn't workin' for you. Durin' that year, maybe the boys and adults will re-learn to value people for their knowledge, ability, and Scout Spirit, which is all Advancement method is tryin' to teach anyway.

Yah, Dozy. This happens a lot, eh. I wouldn't let da SM beat him/herself up too much over it. It's just something to remember for the future. A boy who lacks the skills and Scout Spirit should be given more time to work on them as a 1st Class, Star, and Life Scout. By the time a boy is looking at Eagle, there should be no surprises. Sometimes a new SM is left with a problem by his predecessor, especially if (as you mention) the predecessor was gettin' burned out. Nothin' burns out adult leaders as much as upholdin' standards and expectations in the face of negative parent pressure. So when you get a boy who was ill-served and badge milled up the chain, sometimes the fair thing to do is what your SM did... push to get some semblance of an Eagle, then let it go. Just remember for the future that to do our job of buildin' character, the other ranks have to mean somethin', too. Each should be a significant "step up" on the road to Eagle. If yeh make that a part of your troop culture, the kids will help you if you show you're serious. They want ranks to mean somethin', same as you do. As far as the summer camp behavior goes, I think the mistake was not respondin' immediately, while the boy was at camp. Best to send him home, or if not that to have him (or maybe the whole troop) spend a day or more in "service work" to make up to the staff for his bad behavior. Delayed consequences make for a poor lesson. Dealin' with it now after da fact, an incident report is fine, but yeh still need a consequence. Dependin' on what the offense was, maybe he should not be allowed on campouts for a couple of months?

Yah, kahits. Sounds like the minds and hearts of everyone in your crew are all on the same page. I'd say "trust your gut", eh? Mixin' legal adult "youth" members and kids is a bit touchy in the best of circumstances. Bringin' in a couple of very mature youth to a younger crew will have a big impact on your unit. If the youth who come in are problems, it will have a big negative impact. Only you can decide if your unit is strong enough at this point to "take the hit." If not, then your obligation is to all the youth, not just to these two young ladies... and your first obligation is to da kids already in your program. The best advice is probably to "just say no." A unit absolutely does have control over who is allowed to join. It's a membership application, and applications don't have to be accepted. If ya think your unit is ready for the potential problems and want to give these girls a chance, I'd do a joining conference with them and da parents (are they still livin' at home?) and lay down crystal-clear expectations. Get their side of the story on the previous crew, but also let them know that their membership is "probationary" for the first year, and any breach will result in removal.

If you want to make comedy using stereotypes, use stereotypes that you are identified with. All the great comedians prove that's where the best laughs are. Nah. They all make fun of politicians and lawyers.

Yah, but bodily functions are funny, eh? At least to da average 6th grader. Surely you've had to endure a car ride to camp filled with endless fart jokes? Eagle Foot, I hear ya. Still, we must remember that good people and good staffers often make mistakes, especially when they've been in the woods for a bit too long. Sounds like an "ethical moment" to share with your boys at least. If you can't get through to the staff, do your best to do your duty for da kids in your troop. And then don't forget to thank the staff for the things they did well. Those kids are paid a pauper's wages for a hard job. And down the road if anything comes up again, gentle correction from a friend speaks most loudly.