Beavah

Yah, there are three kinds of transfers, eh? Transfers because of a family change of residence or schedule. Yeh do what yeh can for the lad, though a good fit is not guaranteed. Transfers fairly early on lookin' for a better fit. Yeh have some discussions about how your troop operates, what they're lookin' for, and come to a mutual decision about whether this really will be a better fit. Transfers as older scouts because of arguments with their troop's leadership. I reckon these are da most problematic. In the worst case, it's a lad or parents who have had behavioral problems in da other troop. I know one case where a bully transferred into and effectively wrecked two different troops. In lots of other cases, it's folks who are just sorta disruptive and disagreeable. Often enough it's a boy and/or his parents lookin' for da easiest road, and ready to steamroll any obstacle in the boy's path. I think these transfers yeh have to be a bit cautious about, talk with da previous troop, and set clear ground-rules up for. I know a few troops that just won't accept in-town transfers at Star or Life rank for da reasons Second Class describes. In all cases it's a bit like a divorce after a relatively long marriage, eh? It's hard bein' the rebound relationship. I reckon in all cases, though, with a transfer scout yeh have some extra hurdles to overcome in terms of da boy's and parents' expectations of scouting, so yeh need to make some extra efforts at communication from the very start. Good fit works both ways, so if you're not seein' it, sometimes it's OK to gently re-direct 'em to other options. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm.... Well, that's different. The lad is goin' to go with da appeal rather than come on two outings? Almost makes me wonder if he's doin' it so that at he can stand up and say "this award is worthless, I was able to get it for doing nothing! Here, mom and dad. You wanted it, not me." Those do happen occasionally, more's the pity. I wouldn't waste too much more time on it, eh? You and Chris say "no", as firmly and articulately as yeh can. Document thoroughly, send if off, then wash your hands of the matter. The lad hasn't really been in your troop for three years. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, that's quite an intellectual muddle yeh got goin' there. Markets are where people come together to exchange goods, eh? Markets can't exist without some social norms of behavior. One of da principle reasons why the West and America in particular has been so successful is that there have been strong social norms of behavior in da market, enforced at times by regulation or by just takin' a fellow out back and breakin' his kneecaps. When yeh travel throughout da middle east, yeh see a different social ethic of "get what yeh can get" in every market and bizarre. So despite considerable resources, they remain economically backward. Standardization in markets is a good thing. When yeh standardize on a currency instead of barter (or multi-currency), yeh reduce friction and make pricing more transparent. That reduces da ability of savvy players from makin' money off of the transaction by takin' advantage of ordinary folks' inability to follow currency fluctuations and such. So it speeds da flow of capital from consumer to producer. Standardize a stock instrument for fractional ownership stakes of a corporation, and voila! Yeh have the ability to create a relatively transparent market which reduces da friction of directing capital from investors to producers. Standardize a commodities futures contract and presto! Yeh create a market that can improve da security of producers while assisting distributors and reducin' overall commodity prices for consumers. To create a truly free market, yeh need a standardized and regulated market. Da freedom is in the individual counterparties on setting a price and takin' transparent risks. That is most economically efficient. You'll still have fads and swings, booms and crashes because of human nature, and that's OK. Any fool who buys Facebook at $30 a share deserves to lose his shirt. Yeh just want to protect da market from individuals who by fraud or other means undermine da integrity of the market. You're free to enter into a bad deal, but yeh should not be forced into one. Da problem with unionized manufacturin' labor in recent decades, and government unions in some areas as well, is that they became an extra-market force. Auto was a good example, eh? The auto workers would negotiate contracts simultaneously with all domestic manufacturers in a coordinated effort. They behaved like a monopoly, drivin' up wage and benefit costs artificially. Rather than a worker engaged in a market transaction for labor, yeh had a sole-source supplier dictatin' terms. That created a market distortion, which used labor law to extort high prices from da consumer for poor products. That was eventually broken by imports, where there was no labor monopoly. Da flip side of course is that da holders of capital can form the same sort of cartel that labor can, eh? In fact they can do it more easily, bein' a smaller and more socially cohesive group. Da temptation to do that is deeply rooted in human nature, eh? To try to control da means of production so as to create a monopoly. In small villages this is relatively easily controlled by social sanction, but when da nation became more interconnected a Rockefeller could live far away and not be as susceptible to social sanction. So we developed trust-bustin' laws and labor laws as a national form of social sanction to help protect da freedom of the market. That, and restrictions on banks after da depression so that da risks remained transparent. We let the latter lapse or repealed 'em, so da result was a less free market. People engaged in transactions where da risks were no longer clear, eh? They were obfuscated through derivatives on tranched derivative securities on bonds. So bad that it almost destroyed the integrity of da market entirely. Da perpetrators were protected by law, and they had the additional advantage that the old Robber Barons did, eh? Da holders of capital are now increasingly international, so national social sanction ain't as effective, eh? Folks like Mitt Romney can off-shore a large fraction of their operations or their wealth. Or themselves - I think a record number of capital-owners renounced their U.S. citizenship this past year. So what we're seein' is da free markets now bein' distorted by those folks again. Yeh can pillage a successful domestic village without consequence by livin' elsewhere. Da social sanction which maintains a free market has broken down. And I gotta blame that at least partly on da nuttiness of your academic colleagues in business schools across the nation. Livin' off in da Ivory Tower and not really understandin' da social commitments of markets, they were free to dream up idiotic theories of business ethics like "maximizing shareholder value." All of 'em should be forced back into da real world and have their kneecaps broken. The question is how to proceed from here, eh? I've got no faith in da neo-con Republicans; when they're not bein' stupid they are lying. Mitt Romney isn't stupid, but he is a prevaricator. So that makes him a moderate. Obama has been a moderate, but his party still longs for da days of the labor monopoly. I haven't seen anybody yet who appreciates that free markets and creative destruction are good things, and that maintainin' free markets requires that yeh have sufficient regulation and enforcement to prevent bad actors from ruinin' the marketplace for everyone. So in the mean time, its up to us old furry conservatives who for decades have warned against da ills of the labor monopoly in manufacturin' to now try to speak truth to our neo-con youngsters who have forgotten that a real business actually makes things and provides service. Somebody has to try to undo da damage you academics have done. Beavah

Nah, packsaddle, I'm an old fashioned, conservative fellow, eh? I believe da purpose of business is to make a legitimate profit, eh? My grandfather, a self-educated businessman, shared with me a story that he felt represented da real purpose of business that he'd tried to live his life by. The essence of it went like this: In a village of 100 people, everyone had to spend an hour a day hikin' to the river and hauling water for their family's needs. Then this young fellow from da village noticed after a storm that some water from upstream had flowed into a new channel and he got an idea. Usin' bamboo that he could gather, string that he paid for, and all of his free time for a year he puzzled out how to run a bamboo pipe from upstream down into da village and fill a cistern. His agreement with the other 99 people in da village is that they'd each give him 10 minutes of labor a day in exchange for fillin' up at the local cistern instead of walkin' an hour to the river and back. So each person in da village got 50 extra minutes because of his work. He in turn got 990 minutes of their labor, which meant all his regular chores were now taken care of and then some. He was able to pursue other things. After a while, he noticed that da water comin' down the pipe was able to push things along and do work.... Anyways, the point of my grandfather's story to me was that the only legitimate profit for a real businessman is da profit earned when your work benefits others; when it makes their life easier or better. It's OK to get rich like that, because yeh have also made others' lives richer. That's the traditional American conservative viewpoint, eh? Yeh celebrate that success, and yeh reward it because it encourages more success that benefits everyone. Da problem with these financial engineers is that generally speakin', what they do is look for well-financed, well-run, well-capitalized companies. Companies that have real value that may be underpriced. They put up 10%, borrow 90%, and acquire a controlling interest in the company. Usually that happens by promising big bonuses (bribes) to the current board and execs. Then they take over, and transfer da 90% loan amount onto the company's books. They pay their own 10% back by chargin' da company high fees for management services and other things. Then they chop up da company and sell off its valuable pieces, cutting jobs in order to service da loans that they took out on behalf of da company. If they do their job well, what's left is a much smaller company that is leaner, which they turn around and sell for a huge profit. If they do their job poorly, da company goes bankrupt, the banks they borrowed from are left holdin' the bag and managing the cleanup, and they still break even or make a small profit on fees. The question I have is what part of that is legitimate profit, eh? What part of that is earned by helpin' others lives get better in return for a small portion of their time? Bein' a conservative means that yeh believe to your core in some important values. One of those is that while profit is a good thing, and success to be admired, the only legitimate profit and success is in buildin' somethin' or offerin' a service that makes others' lives better. Profit must profit everyone. Beavah

Ah, fred8033, it's a bit early for Halloween, eh? Sorry to be scarin' yeh! Honestly, though, there is no standard. Unless yeh standardize the test - not da requirements, but da actual test and the rubrics for grading - there is no standard. For da First Class swim test, what does "in a strong manner" mean? What constitutes actually swimmin' da crawl stroke vs. flailing in a forward direction? For demonstratin' water rescue methods, is it throw a line once and do a simple retrieval, or is it do many rescues under different circumstances so that yeh know when and how to reach, when and how to throw? Do yeh have to throw different sorts of things (ring buoys, poly line, etc.)? Do yeh actually have to get the line to the victim? Do yeh actually need a practice victim, or water for that matter? Can't yeh just pretend durin' a troop meeting on shore? If yeh have to demonstrate how a compass works, does that mean just hold it flat so that the needle points? Or does that mean that yeh have to be able to use da compass? For what? If yeh must demonstrate first aid for shock, that's a big thing, eh? Which form(s) of shock? All of 'em? Just a few? Raise the legs and you're done, even if it makes da person worse? What is active? What constitutes showin' scout spirit? On and on... If yeh look at da discussions on these forums, what yeh see mostly is people interpretin' the requirements differently based on their relative understandin' of da program, their subject expertise, and their level of commitment. Mostly, though, da biggest difference is their vision and goals for the boys. That's all pretty normal. It's a feature, not a bug. So why not accept da feature for what it is? B

He IS a good business manager and that's more than I can say about the current occupant or the one just prior to him. Yah, well, have to agree about da current and former occupants of da office. But what makes yeh believe Romney is a good business manager? His career as far as I can tell has been one of highly-leveraged high-risk financial gamesmanship that yielded only average long-run returns. Not actually buildin' a business that produced anything or served anyone. Beavah

But Obama had the results of Bowles-Simpson as well as both houses and he DIDN'T implement it. Therefore, in spite of the lies and in spite of the fact that he hasn't released his long-form birth certificate, I'm going to support Romney. Yeh mean da fellow who's runnin' with Paul Ryan, the guy who voted against Bowles-Simpson event though he helped frame it on da commission? The fellow who promised on Thursday night not to cut Medicare, to increase defense spending, to cut taxes for business and not to raise 'em for individuals? Oh, yah, and reduce the debt? I guess Social Security is toast. Bowles-Simpson was a reasonable, well-thought through compromise, I agree. I was disappointed in both parties for not takin' it up, but particularly with the Democrats. It just tread on too many sacred cows - increasin' taxes, downsizing Medicare and Social Security and defense. Everybody likes to pander and promise on da budget, but nobody wants their name attached to the specific things that need to happen to get it right. What I don't get in da Romney speech at the convention is how he thinks the President is going to create 12 million jobs, other than by makin' government jobs? A tenet of conservative thought is that it's the American people and American businesses that create jobs, eh? Not da politicians. So why make a promise like that? I remember once havin' a scout tell me while workin' on citizenship in the community that he wouldn't vote for da county sheriff because he wasn't pro-life enough. I asked him to read up on da experience of both candidates and their performance record in the job of policing and runnin' law enforcement, and then to look up how much control the county sheriff has over abortion. What can da president affect? Not too much. Da operation of da federal departments over time, a bit of a nudge in one direction or another for da budget, and foreign relations. I think we'll see less environmental protection under Romney, and perhaps a bit of streamlinin' in other departments. The environmental stuff seemed to be one of da things during the speech that he actually believed in. On foreign policy, I see Romney fumblin' that for a while based on his speech, his experience, and his record. Worst would be gettin' us into a military adventure with Iran while cutting taxes, a la GWB. On da economy, no matter who wins we should see growth in the coming years, in part because da relief of uncertainty that is currently holdin' up investment - both U.S. uncertainty in da tax code and budget, and European uncertainty. That's assumin' that continued warming and weather changes don't dust bowl our agriculture sector. Overall I see both Obama and Romney as relatively intelligent moderates, despite their pandering to their party extremes, so I don't really think the election will change too much. Beavah

Yah, easy out there. It always amazes me how worked up adults can get over a bunch of youth awards. Perhaps we can start by admittin' something. There is no real national standard for any rank. The only way to establish a true national standard for a rank or badge would be to implement a national standardized test for da rank. Bring your number 2 pencil . The reality is that there are lots of different standards for ranks. Yeh go to some troops, and a boy might fumble through an answer once and forget it the next week. Yeh go to other troops, and a boy only gets signed off if he passes everything on an adventure challenge weekend where he has to perform every skill to spec, months after he was first taught it. They're workin' from da same requirements, but they're administering their programs differently and interpreting da requirements differently. That's just da reality. There is no standard. For da second group of troops like SeattlePioneer is talkin' about, conflict can arise when a parent really is lookin' for a different sort of troop, one that will chalk up badges faster. That happens mostly when new families who are stuck in cub scout mode join, or lads transfer in from a different style troop. It can also happen like in GKlose's case when a set of more active adult leaders with a different vision have tightened things up, so a lad who could "get away with" stuff before no longer can. That's when yeh start hearin' parents yell about "don't retest" or "don't add", because it reflects on their self-image and ego more than on the boy. For a troop like da first sort, conflicts can arise at districts or on internet forums when someone from a troop with different standards starts sayin' that their kids aren't up to snuff, eh? Typically that happens at Eagle time, because that's da only time that any outside person has any input into da troop's advancement process. That's when yeh hear da adults start yellin' about "don't retest" and "don't add", because it reflects on the adults' self-image and program as much as it does the boy. In da first case, the best choice is to go find a troop that's a better fit for what da parent seems to want. In da second case it's much harder, eh? In that case I think da district has to relax and be supportive of the unit, and down the road perhaps suggest a bit some tightening of standards. So what do we do with da conflicts on internet forums? I think we just share. Sometimes with a great deal of energy. That's OK, though, because as long as we can do that respectfully, folks get a sense that there are other approaches out here in Scout-land. Yeh really can expect boys to be able to plan and cook complex meals on their own six months later; yeh really don't have to get out da number two pencil for every requirement. My problem is that folks who try to smack folks around with quotes from da guidebooks are tryin' to engage in a fight, rather than a discussion. So they get one. My habit tends to be to try to point out da counter-quotes that they are missing, since book quoting tends to be a novice sort of thing, and yeh have to talk in simple terms for beginners. That rarely works, but I try. Others try logic. Others try obedience. Perhaps we should instead just try talkin' about kids. I think SeattlePioneer is takin' the middle-ground with his initial proposal, eh? He's talkin' about honoring the local troop's standards, because we don't really have any way of controllin' those. At the same time, he's allowin' for a lad to go to national to get an award from them instead of from the troop. This is essentially what we have on a de facto basis anyways, eh? We can't make a bunch of troop adults throw the boy a party. An alternative is to allow appeals in both directions. Troops routinely award ranks for standards less than "proficiency", even though "proficiency" is the official BSA standard in the Rules & Regulations. We don't offer an appeals mechanism to remove the rank from a scout who isn't proficient. Perhaps we should. Any registered adult or youth leader can appeal another boy's rank award on the grounds he can't demonstrate proficiency in da requirements. They can shout "don't subtract!" and "a scout learns first, and only later is he individually tested by doing!" as much as we hear "don't add" and "no retesting!" Beavah

What's that you say? Yeh have decided to reverse da ban on power tools and wheelbarrows, lasertag and paintball? G2SS is down to half da current size?? Assumin' da best, yeh understand.

Aw, cbowe, give da fellow a raise. Sounds like he deserves it. 50% up on his current salary. Sound like a good team. Boys need direct, eh? They don't get subtle. Parents need some handholdin' and procedural reassurance. Keep havin' fun out there, and settin' da right tone. B

Yep, I agree with qwazse in that da natural thing for boys is to find and hook up with adults who for whatever mysterious reason they seem to have affinity for at the time. I think there's a deep part of every boy that knows what he needs, and goes out and finds an adult who can fill that need. That's goin' to be different folks for different boys, and we should allow for and encourage that. That's for mentoring, though, eh? That's not for business. When we're talkin' a sit-down high-stakes meeting with the boy and dad, that's business. When it's business, da roles need to be clear and people need to be on the same page, because the slightest bit of difference will do the oddest things to what the lad and his dad actually "hear" in their minds. In that context, I was readin' somethin' different into da postings in da other thread. Cbowe was pretty firm about how he felt and da direction he wanted to lead the troop with respect to this boy. GKlose was writin' multiple posts (not just to us, but in his communication with the boy and dad) that were still exploring options. That's not a good recipe. If da SM is pretty firm on where he's goin' but da CC is havin' more relaxed and "open to options" communications (even in tone) with the family (and without the SM), that's almost guaranteed to become a real problem. Only da two of them can actually say whether my guess is correct, but that sure looked like da tone of things, eh? In particular da CC meetin' with the lad and his dad without the SM present. GKlose seems to confirm that tone in some of what he writes in this thread. Tone matters a lot in this stuff. That's not uncommon, eh? Scouters of all stripes are naturally wired to try to help boys, to see the best in boys, to enjoy workin' with boys. That's why in so many cases (as several folks commented in da other thread) they keep bendin' over backwards and sideways and passin' 'em along in da "hope" that the lad will change. Then they get near the end and discover that not only has the lad not changed, but the act of givin' him the repeated benefit-of-the-doubt and benefit-of-hope has in fact reinforced bad habits and behaviors in the lad. So when it's general mentoring, by all means keep it open. But when it's serious business, stick to da established roles to prevent confusion and misinterpretation by anybody. Same as for an outin', eh? When it's great weather and relaxed, keep it open. When it's bad weather and you're dealin' with an injury, da roles and command structure tighten up. Of course, I could be all wet (heck, us beavahs usually are, eh? ). GKlose needn't ever worry about disappointin' da Beavah. Any fellow who gives of his time and treasure to other people's kids in the Scoutin' program, and is as thoughtful as he is deserves nuthin' but respect for any choice he makes. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, this was quite a thread resurrection there, Gunny. Been a while, though. Good to see yeh. Gotta agree with yeh on Biden's inflammatory comments. Well, although there was a Republican President, he didn't have control of the House AND the Senate at any point, and at that point where the Democrats had control did the spending go up or down from before? Any guesses? Um, not to pick nits, but George W. Bush had control of BOTH the house and the Senate for almost da full 6 years, from the start of his presidency until 2007. It was da Republican majority that cut taxes and eliminated da budget surplus, approved two wars without payin' for 'em, and a Medicare prescription drug entitlement which vastly increased da scope and spendin' of Medicare without payin' for it. When the Democrats took control of da House and Senate in 2007, spendin' actually went down in FY2007, but up in FY2008 because of da financial crisis (which exploded in 2009). I'm not sayin' any of that was good or bad, but I am sayin' that unlike da most recent convention (and probably da next one), we need to be honest with each other as Americans. Da dems did push through big financial relief bills, but President Bush didn't veto 'em. Da Republicans did push through the financial deregulation in the 90s that led to the debacle, but Bill Clinton didn't veto it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... I'm not goin' to get into rlsmith's longwinded quotes, other than to recommend he start by readin' the Rules & Regulations, which describe the actual rules for da overall program, and then read the advancement guidance in that light. What is "deserving of Eagle?". I think every troop should have its own sense for da goals of its program, set by da chartered org. and its leadership. An Eagle Scout should have clearly met the goals for the unit's program. Practically speakin', the lad should be able to do (and actually do!) all of da things for which he is being recognized - be active in his troop and patrol, have proficiency in da skills of 21 merit badges, demonstrate scout spirit, be able to find a need in his community and lead a group of people to address it, step forward to positions of responsibility and then actively live up to the responsibility he has been accorded. Be recognized by others in his troop, church, school, employment, peer and other communities as bein' a fellow who genuinely lives up to da Oath and Law. On review by upstanding members of scoutin' and the community, convince them unanimously that he has met all of these expectations. That's what da BSA expects. What's bein' described is a lad that none of us can honestly say is doin' his best here, eh? What happened three years ago in the troop less than half of da boys remember. What cbowe and GKlose do now will set the tone for the troop for the next 3-5 years, eh? Their example and precedent will stand no matter how many times they tell other boys and families that "this is the last time". I think it's positive hysterical sometimes how da kids have us adults wrapped around their little fingers. I mean, really? A kid who doesn't even live up to his bargain and multiple promises to come on three measly outings, and cbowe and GKlose and most of da rest of us here are wringin' our hands - "Oh my gosh, what are we going to do?" - as though the world revolves around this 17 year old and his feelings? Good heavens! Yeh set da expectations, yeh live by 'em or you're a liar in everybody's eyes, eh? That's what the lad is askin' yeh by testing the expectations. He's askin' in front of everybody "Is the Scoutmaster a liar?" So answer his question by sayin' "No." It isn't that hard. Let him wring his hands about what he's goin' to do, instead of you wringin' yours. It will be a great gift to him to learn that da world doesn't revolve around his feelings. Beavah

Yah, GKlose, why don't yeh just turf it back to the SM at this point, eh? I think that would be better. Just a quick note or a call sayin' that Mr. Cbowe is da SM, and yeh need to speak with him about meetin' the requirements. Once he signs off, then the Committee has a say on whether or not we agree and also will recommend you, but we do that after da SM makes his final decision. One of da hardest things about teamwork and leadership is recognizin' there are times when yeh should do nothing. In this case I also think da SM should do nothin', and say that he's happy to talk to the boy after the third outing. That's just me, eh? I don't like to offer any encouragement for teenagers to whine. If yeh feel that yeh have to meet, at very least meet with the lad together. The SM should be takin' lead and you should be playin' "observer" to match the father's "observer." Never, ever, ever go into a meetin' like that, though, without knownin' the outcome(s). You and the SM have to mind-melded on this one, eh? One voice. Yeh have to know together what yeh expect, whether and how much you'll bend, and who is playin' lead. Anything else isn't fair to the boy. He won't understand or learn from mixed signals. He's already gettin' 'em from dad it would seem, so if the other adults in this drama also send mixed signals you'll leave him confused and miserable. Firm clarity is a kindness in these things. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

High expectations occur during the whole journey, not just at the finishing line. Yep, this is true, eh? Da program needs to have expectations all along the way, and I would have had exactly the same conversation with da fellow you mention as I'm sure you had with him. At the same time, if you're runnin' a race and you go great guns on da first 3 laps but then collapse on the 4th, yeh don't win the race. Havin' expectations all along the way includes havin' 'em at the last lap. GKlose's case is a different one than the example yeh gave, and deserves to be approached differently. Now I appreciate how yeh want to give the lad da benefit of the doubt, but your interpretation of da requirements is more bizarre than I have ever heard. You're about a 4-sigma outlier on this among da scoutin' community. Claimin' that he met "active" in 2009 by never showing up ... it's hard to say that with a straight face, isn't it? Perhaps if he had filed for Eagle in 2009 that would have made it on appeal to National, though I doubt it even then. Certainly it would not now. This lad hasn't met scout spirit by anyone's reasonable definition. And technically, he hasn't met da POR requirement since this was a solo effort more along da lines of a Scoutmaster assigned project. That's allowed for Star and Life, but not for Eagle. That was da SM's mistake, though, so none of us would hold it against the boy. But it's not about all that, eh? It's never about that in Scoutin'. It's about what is best for teachin' this boy and the other boys in the troop about character and responsibility. All interpretation of advancement must harmonize with that goal, eh? That's the Rule, spelled out in da Rules & Regulations of the BSA. Da only question that matters is what example do yeh want to set for this lad and for all the other boys and families in the troop? Our example speaks far louder than our words. Now, I wouldn't have kept the lad on the roster, given him a SM-assigned history project as a token POR, or agreed to such low expectations for bein' active. But that's where these folks are at, eh? So da response is easy. Da SM just says, "I'll be happy to talk with yeh about Eagle stuff after the campfire on da third outing you agreed to. Now, we could really use some help with meeting instruction and planning da next outing..." And the CC backs him up. Beavah

Oh no! It's a "rules" thread again? Oak Tree, aren't yeh just supposed to say "J20" or somethin' from da canonical list?

When we talk life lessons, I think this is key. I think there is a poor life lesson if this scout has to challenge it at council or national to receive his eagle. I think there is a worse lesson if he does not get his eagle. You might be creating a future family that avoids scouting or yet another family that has bad taste for scouting. Oh fer cryin' out loud. There is no poor life lesson in usin' an appeals process respectfully and responsibly. As I said, given da information provided here, I would expect an appeal to be denied. But "might be creating a future family that avoids scouting?". I think you're mostly projectin' your own feelings into someone else, fred8033. I know all kinds of men who failed to "make Eagle" under tough circumstances and are proud Scouting alumni Life Scouts. They have regrets sometimes, but those regrets are their own for their own choice not to complete the rank, not animosity at the program. Many of them say they learned an important lesson about follow-through and commitment that they would not have learned otherwise. They are stronger scouting supporters as adults for that, even though they were once disappointed teenagers. More importantly, this goes beyond this one lad, eh? I have seen boys who quit scouting or talked about how scouting was "worthless" after a lad "got" Eagle in this way. I have seen good, supportive families and volunteers abandon scouting in favor of other organizations "that have real expectations for kids." People, especially boys, don't support organizations because they "get something" for minimal effort and paperwork compliance. They support organizations that accomplish things, that have high expectations, that really pushed them. They try to get into the colleges perceived as more challenging, more demanding. They look for employment in firms that demand excellence. There's nuthin' quite like the bad taste that is left in the mouth of every hard-working scout and his family when a boy "gets Eagle" in this way. Let alone hard-workin' scouters. It tells everyone that they were fools for workin' hard and doin' their best. I know scouters who still talk 20 years later about how much they regret passin' a lad like this along to Eagle. It gnaws at 'em. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BluejacketScouter, after yeh spend a few days thinkin' about all of our comments in da back of your mind maybe they'll soak in a bit. I'd suggest that one of your orders of business as DC is to find a UC for this pack who is from that small, rural town (or a similar one) with an inferiority complex. Either that, or decide yeh want the Cubmaster job when yeh drive da current Cubmaster out. B

Yah, hmmm.... Thank yeh all for sharing. I'd make just a couple of observations. The first is perhaps the most important. GKlose, you and your SM cbowe need to get on da same page and get clear about roles. As CC in this, your role is to represent da views of the Committee and support the expectations and goals of the program. Your role is NOT to work with the boy, to help the boy succeed, to be sympathetic, to have back door conversations with the parents. The job of workin' with the boy belongs to the Scoutmaster. The job of dealin' with the parents on a program issue belongs to the Scoutmaster until he kicks it to you as a problem that requires a more firm response. Yeh absolutely have to get out of Scoutmaster mode, and stick to your role. If there are any "exceptions" to expectations to be made, then those must be made by the Scoutmaster. Your role is to back the Scoutmaster up by being firm about the committee's and program's expectations for the troop as a whole. What you do as CC sets the general expectations for all the boys. Stick to that. Only if da SM feels that there are special circumstances because he knows extenuatin' details from workin' with the lad should the Scoutmaster make an exception. Right now, you're strayin' way too far into da SM role. Da second observation is that it seems you're strayin' way too far into being advancement-focused. All of your language is about tryin' to help the boy get Eagle. That's not why we're here. We're here to try to help all the boys learn about character and citizenship. From everything you're saying, da proper approach right now for this lad should be on a few of the other Methods - youth leadership, values, outdoors. It should be "hey, we really need your help teachin' XXX for the next set of meetings, and doin' the checkout at the next outing". Nothing about advancement. Now, if I were da SM, I don't think I'd have another conversation with the lad about advancement until after he'd come out and really participated as a Life Scout on the outings and at PLC meetings the way he agreed to. Don't argue this, don't discuss it, don't honor the whining by the lad or his parents with your time. There's really nuthin' to discuss. "I'll talk to you about this after campfire on your third outing. Right now, we're working on helpin' the PLC get the plans straight for the next trip. How are you going to help?" Spend your time workin' on helpin' the boy develop his character. Take da emphasis off advancement. That having been said, let me just say if yeh give this lad Eagle at this point, you are doin' all of us a disservice. For advancement to work as a method, da awards have to have some meaning. Some meaning for the boys, some meaning for the community. When yeh dole 'em out for carryin' a lad across da finish line with no effort on his part, you wreck the method for everyone else. Right now on my card he has not really met a POR. A POR is somethin' that involves showin' up at PLC meetings and workin' with others to advance the troop. SM-assigned projects like goin' off on your own and buildin' a troop history are not allowed for the Eagle rank. You established expectations for "active" (really minimal expectations that I think most scouts would find entirely lame), and he has not met them. He is not bein' trustworthy and loyal in terms of living up to his agreements, by making repeated promises and not followin' through on a matter he claims is important to him. So he has not met Scout Spirit. So right now by your own (very low) standards he has not met da requirements. In my council, an EBOR under disputed circumstances would not approve this boy for the Eagle rank. I've only seen one of those go to National from here, and the appeal was denied. In da future, though, yeh need to drop inactive lads from your roster at recharter. Haven't seen 'em? Not a member. Beavah

Yah, GKlose, I think yeh know the right answer, eh? The lad hasn't demonstrated to yeh anything resembling what yeh would consider "active", or "scout spirit", or genuinely servin' the troop responsibly. I think yeh set yourself and the boy up for failure when yeh gave him a make-believe POR and make-believe option to demonstrate "active" by comin' on 3 outings. Yeh thought yeh were bein' nice, but that sort of thing never really addresses the issue. The boy should have had to convince the SPL that he was ready and able to do a job, by showin' up a whole bunch of times and helpin' out at various events just to demonstrate to the SPL that he could be relied on. Only when the SPL was comfortable with the lad's commitment and responsibility should he have been considered for a POR. I see this a lot, eh? Adults who try to bend over backwards for a boy, and break da system. That never helps the boy or the unit. Active is active, responsible is responsible, to serve in a position of responsibility yeh have to demonstrate responsibility before anyone is goin' to trust you with a position. So now, what do you do? Our esteemed colleagues will tell yeh that yeh follow da paperwork, so that the boy learns that he is entitled to positions and jobs, and that he is entitled to awards without work, and he can get what he wants by lawyering the fine print instead of behaving with honor. I say balderdash. I just can't figure out for da life of me why all da non-lawyers want to treat da advancement regs in ways that only da worst of the legal profession would treat real laws. Yeh serve the boys in your troop and this boy by saying you're sorry, he did not meet your expectations for bein' an active member, he did not meet anyone's reasonable definition of scout spirit, and he should be ashamed as a 17-year-old doin' such a half-hearted job on a POR. Yeh document this thoroughly and refuse to sign his application. Yah, yah, and yeh do it in a way that tries to elicit from him an understanding, and yeh do it with regret and compassion, but yeh do it. Then yeh wash your hands of the matter. He's welcome to appeal, and I wouldn't speculate on da outcome of that. I would expect from what I know of da way these things are being approached that given your documentation the outcome of such an appeal at both da council and national levels would be negative. I wouldn't worry about it or let it upset yeh, though. You've done your part, and that's all you are accountable for. Since he's not an active member in your program, I'd think yeh are under no obligation to offer an Eagle COH. Beavah

Yah, OK, for CalicoPenn and raisinemright. - that's a : followed by a ) - that's a ; followed by a ) - that's a : followed by a P - that's a "cool" sandwiched between two : - that's a "mad" sandwiched between two : It just isn't any fun unless yeh can make faces at other people! B

Yah, I agree with everybody! I think we have made da program way too complicated, bureaucratized, and specialized. For both the boys and adults, but especially the adults. It's why I got down on Blue Cards a while back, eh? I'm just not convinced we need a system that requires 6 different people to handle paperwork to give kid an award. They can be Valedictorian or Varsity MVP with less bureaucracy. The reason we dont use our leaders very efficiently is because we dont match their personal skills with their responsibilities. If there is any one rule that should be stapled to the forehead of every adult involved in Scoutin', this is it. It's not about following books to the letter. It's about findin' the right people to do important tasks, and sometimes reconfigurin' the task to match da skills of the person. The SPL doesn't have a job description. The SPL has a troop to lead, and needs to figure out how to set things up so that he does things that he's best at, and find an ASPL and other leaders to do things that he's not as good at. Same with troop and district and council adults. Beavah

Unfortunately, if Dad is a registered MBC for that badge, and the parents object to the SM's recommendation of a MBC, for any reason, you have really have no grounds to reject dad as the MBC. Sure yeh do, and that's exactly the point. The SM does have the ability to direct a boy to a particular counselor (or not allow a particular counselor if another is available). Da SM has that ability for exactly the reasons I described, and then some. How he executes that ability is most often goin' to be through conversations with the scout, unit culture, etc. As Eagledad suggests, in a well established troop with a sound unit culture, this stuff doesn't come up. Peer pressure and personal honor and gentle conversations take care of it. A boy who went to dad as a counselor to avoid the well-liked African-American counselor would be hammered by negative peer reaction and social disapproval. The 2-hour First Aid MB would be dismissed by his patrol mates as "fake", and dealt with by a kind SM with a "let me hook you up with Mr. Smith where you'll have a great time learning this well." Not every unit is perfect or healthy, and not every boy or family has yet learned honor. In that case, sometimes when yeh have "the talk", the lad turns around and misbehaves again, and it now becomes a matter of discipline rather than persuasion. Most of da time youth leadership works marvelously if you've set the lads up for success, but every now and then yeh get a boy who doesn't buy in and yeh need to offer more firm guidance. No different here, eh? Particularly when there is not (yet) a sound, experienced unit culture in place, but also occasionally in response to da choices boys make, there are times when "no" just has to be "no." Approval really does mean approval, and if yeh do somethin' without approval it may not be honored. As for da rest, yah, sure, there are no guarantees in life. A good MBC might have life happen and not be as good, but at least the SM has done his best. And if da SM has done his best consistently over time, then he or she will have built a unit culture where the lad will come back and say "Mr. Jones really hasn't had the time, and even though he said I was complete I'd like to try it again with someone else." We're here to do right by da kids, not to serve da bureaucracy. Beavah

Isn't there a computer program for that? Yeh mean like ScoutNet? I think Eagledad accurately describes da situation in most districts and councils, and especially for most bigger troops. Honestly, it's been true for decades especially in larger councils, but more true lately. If yeh happen to have good district or council volunteers, why would yeh spend that valuable resource on a paperwork task like this when there are so many other things that are more worthwhile for da program and more fun and meaningful for them? Beavah

Yah, youngmaster, I agree with da crowd, eh? Teachin' the boys how to use notes to supplement memory is a good thing, a necessary skill. I'm not sure yeh want to standardize the form of notetakin', especially not to a 3-ring binder. This comes back to da universal rule: You can either specify the outcome and let folks figure out the method(s) that work best to achieve that outcome, or specify the method and take whatever outcome you get. I think yeh want the outcome, rather than insisting on a method. So yeh run a whole set of games aimed at pushin' 'em towards the outcome. There's a reason why Scouting historically used a lot of observation and memory games, eh? Because boys need to learn how to be observant and remember things. No different here. Have da SPL throw in odd facts, detail a recipe, quote Abraham Lincoln. At da next meeting, start with a contest to see who can remember da duty roster for dinner and da third sentence of the Gettysburg Address? Doesn't even need prizes; bragging rights are often enough. Yeh can start easy, and then get more complicated - did the recipe for Puke Pudding from 3 meetings ago require oregano? In other words, give 'em some fun and some challenge that requires note-taking of some sort to succeed, rather than requiring notetaking. Let each boy figure out what type of note-taking works best for him. Maybe it's usin' his iPhone as a camera or a dictaphone, or maybe it is an old-school 3-ring binder. Whatever! Beavah