Beavah

Round these parts, doin' 75 on the highway makes yeh a hazard and a moving roadblock. I think there were some college kids in one city (Atlanta?) who went around drivin' the speed limit and filming all the near-accidents, traffic jams, and road rage they caused. Generally speakin', I reckon it's safest to go the speed of traffic. Some adults drive lots of miles a year for their professional life and have lots of experience. Others just drive da local kids carpool a couple times a week and bicycle commute the rest of the time. I think folks should do what they're comfortable with, eh? Tryin' to tell other adults how to drive is a losing approach. If yeh really discover that some are truly unsafe, yeh just quietly drop 'em from the list of folks yeh ask to help with driving. Over the years, I've nudged that along for a couple aggressive drivers, and a couple of timid below-speed-limit drivers, and one fellow who I think just couldn't see very well. Since none of us are drinkin', da biggest thing to watch and check on each other about is fatigue. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... If they've chosen to follow da traitor, doesn't that mean they're automatically doin' something wrong? I mean, a Scout is Loyal after all.

Nah, not overly paranoid. Drivin' is our biggest risk in Scouting. It's a risk to take seriously. I do think you're jumpin' at the wrong fly, though. Da cause of the accident in da other thread was fatigue, like as not. Fatigue is no stranger at the end of summer camp. Towin' trailers adds some handling issues, but you'd be better off tryin' to make sure that the driver is fairly experienced at towing stuff with his/her vehicle, eh? I'm not sure what sentencin' the kids to be separated from their friends does to help safety at all. If yeh want to do somethin' more productive with kids, put a more experienced older boy in da shotgun seat and task him with (1) keeping the driver awake and alert, and (2) help with navigatin'. In other words, give the drivers some support. For cryin' out loud, though, stop with da convoy silliness. Tell people to use their GPS's, or their youth navigators. It can be a fine and reasonable thing to convoy on rural roads or other places where yeh want to be able to provide support to a disabled vehicle or make sure yeh don't leave anybody behind. We do it in da winter in more remote areas; helps to have a couple buddy vehicles to dig yeh out of a snow drift . Silly thing to do on a long highway drive, also not very courteous to other drivers. Beavah

Except da BSA no longer says no caravans, eh? That got dropped from da G2SS some years back, around the same time they dropped da prohibition on driving at night. The real issue I reckon was fatigue, eh? And the sudden correction with a trailer. Pretty easy to lose control when yeh make sudden steering moves while towin', and awfully hard for anybody who is close by to dodge yeh when yeh lose control like that. Better lesson might be to have a few extra folks come up to help drive the pickup run, so that the adults who have been subject to a week of sleep deprivation can take a break. Prayers for all involved, especially our brother scouter who was more seriously hurt. Beavah

*Facepalm*

It'd be up to da new troop about an ECOH. I expect most would say "yes". The way the Disputed Circumstances route goes is that a lad should have everything done for Eagle except the SM Conference/BOR. Then the district takes over for those things, eh? So it doesn't need to take a long time if yeh already have things in place. Your son would have to "testify" at his Board of Review, nuthin' more. A good district should push back gently, since the Disputed Circumstances route shouldn't be an easy end-run around da unit leadership, but if your son makes a good written case for it and it seems like the SM/Committee aren't open to doin' their part, it tends to move along. If the lad has time and is open to continuing in Scouting, though, I'd say go the new troop route. Try to spend at least 6 months contributing as an active player and leader in the new troop before yeh go for Eagle, even if yeh don't "need" the time. That way his new troop-mates get to know him, his new adult leaders get to appreciate him, and da Eagle process and ECOH are more meaningful for everybody. Might also renew the lad's long-term interest in Scoutin', and get him to stick around. Beavah

Yah, I hear yeh, @@fred johnson. I'm supportin' a lot of units with different adult vision, and turnover and all the rest. Yeh have to sort of roll with these things and not take 'em too seriously... while also keepin' the Vision of da program in mind. To my way of thinkin' one of da sadnesses of the modern G2A is that da mandate from above was to reduce the number of complaints and appeals, eh? That's the metric used for evaluation. By that metric it's been quite successful. So I get what you're sayin' about the way some of that document reads. I fully admit to bein' a bit more of a traditionalist who cares for doin' right by the kids rather than helpin' lighten da staff load in Irving. I don't think we should have to re-test a lad with a Swimming MB to see if he can swim. I think if we need to do that we failed the boy, eh? Worse, we set him up to get hurt because he thinks he can swim and might go out when we're not around and get himself into trouble. High adventure bases require lads to be First Class scouts because at some level we expect First Class to mean something in terms of a boy's readiness for that sort of program. Eagle is the biggie in this regard, eh? We hold that rank out to da community as bein' deeply meaningful - meaningful enough to merit an advantage in college admissions and military pay grade and employment opportunities. If at some level we're not a certification program, then we need to stop trumpeting the value of Eagle Scout as well. That's why Eagle is our most frequent conflict point with Advancement, eh? Units follow da G2A and let kids slide by until they come up for Eagle, and then they realize that approach doesn't result in a boy who merits all those accolades and advantages. It's not so much that they're tryin' to "change da rules" on the boy at the last minute. It's that they were followin' da rules and didn't get the outcome they wanted, and they don't want to be dishonest with the broader community. What they need to do in such a case is go back and fix their approach to Advancement startin' with Scout, eh? No way to fix an almost-18-year-old, and that's not fair to the lad. But in fixin' their program, they should be makin' sure that Scout, and Tenderfoot, and First Aid MB and all the rest really mean somethin'. That way a lad with an Eagle badge will really mean something too. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Take it from an old Council Commish, this ain't the way to go about this. Your DC really needs to step in and pull your hubby back in for re-training. He's tryin' to be the Scoutmaster, eh? Rather than bein' a friend to the unit and da SM. That's a recipe for conflict that he's puttin' your son in the middle of. Well intentioned, I'm sure, but it's not da role of a commish to take "advancements away from SM", or to insist on uniforming, or demand "formal" Courts of Honor. I'm rather fond of da informal, kid-friendly ones myself. People are human, eh? They often avoid conflict. It might just be that da SM sees your family as a source of conflict or stress, and is just avoidin' your son for that reason. Not sayin' that's healthy, or that the troop is healthy. It doesn't seem that way. Just sayin' that y'all might be contributin' inadvertently to the dynamic. This is why folks shouldn't be commissioners for their son's unit. Beavah

Yah, then that was a donation from the old troop to the new troop, eh? They're not really monies that belong to you. The new troop can use 'em to buy patrol cook gear if they want. Just depends on how they're set up. Beavah

Nah, we're always seein' things through interesting lenses, eh? The things folks post here I assure you are exactly the same sorts of things that folks in units in your area are sayin' about their unit... and sometimes what folks might be sayin' about your unit behind your back. If when yeh look around your area yeh see units that are strong, or are strugglin', or have a few refugees come in or go out but you still see fellow scouters who are tryin', then that's normal. No different here. Sometimes units struggle, eh? Sometimes they're pullin' themselves out of struggles, sometimes they're growin', sometimes they're coastin'. They have life cycles as leaders come and go. Sometimes parents are strugglin' with their units, sometimes an adult leader doesn't "click" with a kid, sometimes a boy crawls up an adult leader's nose and relationships break down. All normal. All happenin' in your backyard, too. Don't imagine that the troops yeh read about online are any better or worse than those yeh see at da district camporee. Most leaders are good enough folks, but we all have weaknesses. Sometimes we're in da wrong position. Sometimes we don't have the life experience to help us figure out this Scoutin' stuff. Most often, we're spending as much time as we have, and a unit just lacks the adult capacity to grow/learn/do better. That's why a wise commissioner works to gently build capacity rather than try to "fix" things, eh? Beavah

Yah, or alternately da SPL can call all the boys and still run a meeting this Sunday, eh? No adults required, and it might be a lot more fun! Beavah

Yah, @@perdidochas, it depends on your local area, eh? Some councils or districts do EBORs at the unit level and send a district or council person as a representative, like what happens in your area. I confess I prefer that approach, eh? I think it shows respect for da unit and chartered partner who have put in 6-7 years with the boy, and allows 'em to fully participate in one of the Great Paychecks of Scouting. I also think it's better for the boy to have familiar faces that he knows and thinks highly of review and recognize him as a young adult. Strangers from da council just aren't the same. In some councils, though, EBORs are a district/council function. So nobody from the unit participates, except that a SM might sit in quietly. The lad gets 3-6 strangers for his board who don't really know him. Usually this sort of EBOR is set on a particular day of the month at some central location with many candidates scheduled, so the amount of time and attention each lad gets is more limited (and on a schedule). These are the ones where a boy is more likely to be "surprised" by adult questions or behaviors, eh? In fact, there are fair odds that da folks sittin' on his board will be associated with a troop he/his parents chose not to join because it wasn't a good fit, and now they're conductin' his Eagle review. Like @@Stosh says, in my experience that's where we're most like to see da "practice" EBORs at the unit level. Only fair to the lad in some ways. I just don't think it makes for great Scoutin'. To cap it off, places where district-level EBORs are held are more likely to have officious district people who wanted control of da EBOR, so it sorta selects for more problematic adult behavior. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I don't disagree with this. Scouts should learn their skills by doing things, eh? By patrol competitions, by situations where they need to use their skills. Raising the bar involves improvin' the instruction, but mostly improvin' the program to provide a lot of active practice and fun usin' the skills. Da thing is, that's all part of Step 1: A Scout Learns. Earning rank comes after all that, eh? It comes well after learning, and after bein' tested, and after bein' reviewed. Sometimes at a review we find that we blew it somewhere along the way, eh? Maybe we did a one-and-done group parlor test which didn't show that a boy hadn't really learned; maybe we discover the instruction was poor and the lad learned the CPR procedures from 10 years ago; maybe mom or dad signed off when they weren't supposed to, or someone who wasn't a MBC for the badge signed off on da badge. Maybe someone got confused and signed off on "active" when the lad was largely absent. Mostly, that's good feedback for the program, eh? It allows us to go back and try to improve da program in those areas, or fix procedures or whatnot. That's the primary purpose. It's also good feedback for the scout, eh? The burden is not only on the unit. We want to build independent, responsible, character-filled young men. The way to do that is to teach 'em that not everything is spoon-fed and not all da responsibility falls on adults. They have to take responsibility for their own learnin' and advancement. Just because they can get away with scammin' a signoff when they don't really know something doesn't mean that they should. So we also give feedback to the boy and encourage him to go back and do a better job. Boards of Review should happen fairly frequently, and lots of 'em should be without a boy advancing. Or, put another way, a lad who hasn't learned the skills or been meaningfully active hasn't done the work. Givin' a boy a fake patch that doesn't represent skills he has really learned or growth he has really achieved is truly mean to the boy, eh? Makes him a poser in da eyes of his peers. Can even put him in a bad or dangerous position, like when a pencil-whipped First Class lad comes on a high adventure trip unprepared. It's also not healthy for da program, since it makes the badge less valuable in the eyes of other boys and the Method less effective. All things in balance, eh? Advancement isn't a make-work-for-pay arrangement, it's a mentoring process we use to help lads become self-motivated learners and participatory citizens. Beavah

I confess I'm not particularly interested in scouts followin' rules. I'm more interested in scouts havin' good character so that they do the right thing even when there aren't any rules (or sometimes, in spite of da rules). Most of our sponsors are organizations that have some version of a sabbath, eh? A day of rest, with expected participation in religious services. That's a good example of the sort of thing that's part of "fulfilling a member's obligation". As far as I know, almost all churches make exceptions. Doctors on call, family emergencies, travel far from any church. Sometimes other good works truly do fulfill a "member's obligation." At the same time, most churches still expect yeh to come to church even if you're a good football player, or yeh take AP classes, or whatnot. That's just to be a good member, eh? I reckon folks lookin' for awards from the church should be doin' even more. Seems like that's what we're tryin' to teach the boys. A commitment to being a member of a group is a commitment. There are times when somethin' else is truly a higher priority, but those by and large are temporary and rare. Just like the good Lord expects us both to truly honor the sabbath and still make exceptions for healin' the sick, we should be teachin' boys to truly honor their commitment to scouting but still skip da meeting if they come across an auto accident, or if a friend needed 'em to switch days for a volunteer shift at da nursing home. What just ain't honorable is to expect to receive an award from an organization when yeh haven't even been showin' up. Beavah

A Scout in this case is still considered “active†if a board of review can agree that Scouting values have already taken hold and have been exhibited. This might be evidenced, for example, in how he lives his life and relates to others in his community, at school, in his religious life, or in Scouting. It is also acceptable to consider and “count†positive activities outside Scouting when they, too, contribute to his growth in character, citizenship, or personal fitness. Yah, nuthin' wrong with this, eh? If a lad has been absent enough not to meet his unit's general expectations, it is acceptable for the Board to consider other activities outside of Scoutin'. Caring for a sick relative, a special mission activity for his church that overlapped summer camp, that sort of thing. It's acceptable. Can be reasonable. Sometimes there are exceptions that should be considered. It's not required, nor should every single lad who is doin' any other outside activity be granted such a "third test" exception. Exceptions are for exceptional circumstances. What it definitely does not say is that older, high-school aged boys should be held to a different expectation. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Lots of stuff here, eh? And lots of history it seems. If I'm readin' this right, the lad was a transfer late in his scoutin' career into this troop. A move perhaps (?) Troops have cultures, eh? In their own way, young folks are also pretty conservative. They want da things that have become part of their life to be stable. They've figured 'em out right? So it's often really hard for a lad to switch troops later on in his career. All he sees are the way things are different and not as good, at least for a while. We adults do this too, eh? How many times have yeh seen someone new to an organization say "Well, at my old organization, we did it differently!" Adult leaders are human too, eh? They've got a troop culture goin' with a whole bunch of lads they've known since age 11, and now there's this new kid tryin' to make changes. It can be a challenge for adults to adjust. This is normal human stuff. Stuff that it's a good learnin' and growin' up process to work through, but stuff that will be an added challenge for an Aspergers kid. Then we add into it Dad, who shouldn't be a UC for his son's troop and who as a UC certainly shouldn't be tryin' to get da district to force things on the unit; and mom on the committee (I think). Oi! What a muddle. Hard to say anything from afar. Sometimes in cases like this movin' to Troop #3 is a good thing for a boy. Troop #2 has taught him that not all troops are alike, so he's more open to Troop #3 bein' different from #1 and #2. He might even realize that there are a few things he liked better about Troop #2. Part of da growin' up process. I'd leave it up to the boy, eh? He seems like he's thinkin' it through just fine. Mom and Dad need to take a few steps back, though. No point in gettin' involved as parents in the lad's struggles with the meeting plans for the week. Those are his struggles. Stay out of da drama. If he does decide to move to Troop #3, dad's not allowed to be UC, mom should stay off the Committee. Just be supportive parents. Aspergers kids have a rough go of it, since they miss some of da social cues and that sorta accelerates the drama sometimes. Help the boy work through that, not so much by "scratching and clawing" but by figurin' out strategies to make communication more explicit. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... not that I can see. Shouldn't our expectations be higher for older boys who have spent more time in da program? For lads who are aspirin' to higher rank? Beavah

Yah, in my experience da "practice" BORs arise because of perceived problems with district or council BORs or (less frequently) with district/council reps at unit BORs. If yeh have a lad who gets "burned" or just plain surprised in a bad way by da behavior of your district folks, the natural thing for the unit to do is to start preparin' the boy for that sort of thing, eh? After all, it's probably not an experience the lad has had during his Scoutin' experience up to that point. Sometimes DAC members can be a particularly officious bunch. I prefer unit-level EBORs where da district/council rep is not the chair, but just a respectful observer/participant. No surprises for the boy that way, and no need for "practice". The BOR will be pretty much what the lad is used to in his unit, whatever that is. Plus I agree with the others who have commented that it's a Good Thing for the unit committee and CO folks to participate in Eagle BORs and to let 'em run a bit longer than district-level ones do. One of the few great rewards for volunteers, and da best feedback on your program you're likely to get. Beavah

Yah, I confess I'm personally a believer in this approach, and in @@David CO' s notion that such things should be done discreetly. Families experiencin' financial stress are typically experiencin' all kinds of other stress, eh? Parent workin' multiple low-wage / temporary / on-call jobs, strugglin' to keep an old car on the road, da personal and family stress that comes with financial stress, health issues, supportin' older relatives who also may be havin' hard times, etc. Plus lack of skills, bad habits, etc. eh? Stuff like what @@meyerc13 describes. Yeh can't solve all of these as a scout unit. All yeh can do is try to lower the barriers to a boy's ability to participate equally with his friends in Scouting. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Why? Will his HS athletic coach give him a Varsity letter for never showin' up for practice or games because the lad was actively involved in Scouts? Will his AP teacher give the boy an "A" in his class if he skipped out most days and never did da AP coursework, but participated in rigorous Scouting? It's amazin' how little we value our Scoutin' program. Beavah

Nope. Da BSA's Rules and Regulations are da standards that apply to the whole organization, and the ones yeh agreed to when yeh signed your adult application. What I quoted is da actual official definition. Beavah

Nah. Da actual official definition of "active" is provided by da BSA's Rules & Regulations: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member’s obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member’s age, as promulgated from time to time by the Boy Scouts of America. In terms of using da Advancement Method to help boys learn character and citizenship I reckon the unit and the chartered organization has to decide what sort of character and citizenship they're tryin' to teach, eh? Some units may view a member's obligation to be regular weekly attendance (like most churches teach about a member's responsibility). Some maybe less, but I hope all units set somethin' that reflects real character and citizenship, eh? All da G2A asks is that yeh be up front about it, so that a boy knows what a "member's obligation" is to your unit when he joins. I don't reckon that belongs in "bylaws", though. More like an information sheet and what a Scoutmaster says to the lad and his parents in a joining conference. In terms of small groups like troop committees, it can be useful to have real bylaws... the stuff that specifies who is on the committee, how they get selected, how often they meet, how "votes" are conducted and such. Youth attendance doesn't belong there, nor any of da other "stuff" that frequently comes up. If you're goin' to be writin' any "rules" down at all, I'd encourage yeh to legislate for the norm and not the exception. What do yeh want to be the case most of the time? Then yeh deal with da exceptions or problems as they come. Legislatin' to try to fix individual problems is just poor practice. Beavah

I thought lawyers would get kicked off the bar for saying things like that! I reckon I've been kicked out of a few bars, but mostly for other things.

Yah, not sure why yeh think da government needs to get involved in that, eh? Do yeh really expect such silliness to happen? Seems like worryin' about what happens if suddenly 500 people want to bicycle on da same 200 feet of sidewalk. Ain't likely, and sometimes I reckon citizens can just work things out on their own. Yah, because every time a lad falls out of a tree the government needs a new regulation about tree height, right? What @@Stosh posted was not modern drones, eh? It was old RC model aircraft. Like he says, those have been around for 50 years or so Despite all that time and da accidents mentioned, the sky hasn't fallen, 500 people aren't tryin' to take off and land from a 1-acre park, and da only regulations are da FAA model aircraft section, which is controlling. Isn't any need to peddle fear, eh? New stuff is normal. In this case it's an improvement in both safety and utility. We've got a couple of troops and one crew who are makin' regular use of drones. Great stuff. Teaches photography, aviation, electronics, digital/computer stuff. And it's FUN. Beavah

Nobody's suggestin' that there aren't competin' interests. Of course there are! I reckon that's just life in a society. Not sure what safety issues we're talkin' about because there've been precious few drone accidents. It's not yet clear what da risks are, or even if there are any. Da BSA's approach to safety is not regulatory, though. It's educational. We teach folks how to do things safely, even dangerous things like watersports and cycling and startin' fires. We publish guides to inform and educate, but we're not supervisin' or regulatin' local units. If we did, then we would be liable for their actions, eh? Whenever a new thing comes to town, old things have to give way and make a bit of room for the new thing. Bicycles, cars, skateboards, mopeds, hoverboards. Skiers have to make room for snowboarders. Hikers for mountain bikers. Map-and-compass curmudgeons like myself for GPS-geocachers. Even old immigrants for new immigrants. It all creates some tensions and requires some re-negotiatin' of norms and courtesies. Best to do that da way Scoutin' does it, with kindness, consideration, and education. As for federal pre-emption of state and local statutes with respect to aviation, I'll stand pat. These things are bogus. Beavah