Beavah

Yah, I raised this in da previous thread, and it seemed like a good topic for the group. The BSA allows Eagle BORs to be conducted at either the unit level (with a district representative), at the district level, or at the council level. As far as I know, there aren't any councils left out there that conduct 'em at the council level, but I might be mistaken. Generally speakin', as councils have consolidated and become larger, or in areas where the district spans a bigger geographic area, the unit-level Eagle BOR has been the most common. For those of you who haven't seen one of those, it works like a regular troop BOR, though typically it's a special evening set aside and the troop invites a couple of outside folks (Eagle alumni, chartered org., other community members). The district sends a representative as a guest as well. These tend to be be very personal conversations, since the boy knows some of the adults and vice versa. Recommendation letters just flesh out what everybody knows about the boy and become conversation starters, and there's a lot of positive feeling among all parties. Scouters get their "paycheck", boys get the time and interest of adults who really know him and care. They tend to run as long as the parties have things to talk about, typically an hour or so. Some councils use district-level EBORs, usually in smaller councils with districts that don't span too wide an area and where troops are small. For those who haven't seen one of those, they're generally scheduled monthly, and the SM or parent drives the boy to the site where he will be one of a small bunch of boys who have their review scheduled for the night. He'll be presented to the BOR by his SM, who will then retire. The boy won't usually know the board members and vice versa, so there is more emphasis on records and recommendation letters, and things stay more formal. They're on a schedule, so the review is typically set for something like 25 minutes or so. Of the two, I like the unit level BORs much more. I just think it's right and proper for the unit folks who have put in so many years with the boy to be able to participate, and I like the tone better. It's more of a conversation with new young man than an administrative review. What do the rest of you think of each (or just the one yeh happen to use in your area)? Beavah

Beavah - many councils assign a District Advisor.. In our district the scout will call if the project changes or they have a difficult question this person is their contact person. Yah, moosetracker, does your council do district-level EBORs? Most of the bigger councils have moved to unit-level EBORs, and as more councils consolidate I reckon that will continue. You're right, though, there are a fair number that still do district-level EBORs, and I could see 'em also doin' a district-level advisor. I don't think there are any councils left that do council-level EBORs. Anyone hear of any? Havin' seen and worked with both systems, I prefer the unit-level EBORs myself. District EBORs are much less personal for both the boys and the unit folks who have put in all that time. The boys tend to open up more and be more at ease, and the unit scouters get their paychecks. Same with advisors. If you're goin' to have one, I think it should be a unit scouter who knows the boy and the town where he's doin' his project. Stronger ties to the community, less likely to be friction or just random "issues" between the lad and the advisor. Except in this case, I guess! Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I'm goin' to give my response here, echaney. NACAP can come back in and disagree if he likes. "Youth Protection Issues" in the BSA refers to things related to the physical (typically sexual) abuse of children and other stuff that rises to that level of seriousness. Yeh don't want to be throwin' that flag unless yeh really mean it. These days, things like "hazing" and "bullying" and such have real legal definitions as crimes in many states. Accusing an adult leader of a crime against children is a very serious thing. Again, if yeh are goin' to throw that flag, yeh better really mean it. Because accusin' an adult of crimes against children when it isn't true is defamation of character, for which you are are morally and financially liable. No, nothing you have reported here is anywhere near a Youth Protection or bullying issue. It's a disagreement about an extracurricular project. The advice that NACAP just gave yeh is poor. Again, it's time to let go. As hard as it is as a parent when yeh feel someone has wronged your kid, he's not a member of that old troop any more. That door has closed. Other doors have opened. From what yeh report, your son is bein' smart and looking ahead. Yeh should join him there and not look back. Find a new troop. Join a crew. Move on to a new scoutin' chapter. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yep, what johnponz said. No additional data is required, your current data do not support da conclusion yeh draw. In addition to what johnponz mentions, you'd have to consider what percentage of those who self-report being heterosexual are in fact homosexuals who are still closeted, or homosexuals who believe that reporting as heterosexual will be beneficial to them in court proceedings or sentencing, or any number of other things, eh? Self-reports of personal/private data are notoriously unreliable and conditioned by circumstance and place. Then yeh would have to consider interaction effects by sub-population. Self-reporting as homosexual is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, eh? So it might be that in the general population it's not predictive, but in da higher income brackets it is predictive (where self-reports are more accurate). Or vice versa. And so on. Then there are additional complexities because human subjects research is often highly restricted when it comes to these sorts of issues and funding is agenda-driven, so neither studies nor samples are likely to be unbiased. Alas, da real world is more complex than simply citing a percentage, if we want to be honest with each other and with the data. That's less fun because we can't wear as much war paint and beat drums, but I reckon it does more good. Now perhaps we can get back to volunteers without kids in the program as Cub Scout leaders? Beavah

Yah, BNelon44, quite right. No approval on the final plan required, just recommended. All the councils around these parts are requirin' functional approval by the unit project coaches for safety and supervision reasons, though. I expect that's goin' to become the practical norm. Yah, moosetracker, I agree that readin' carefully when only hearin' one biased source is hard, eh? So I'm mostly raisin' the obvious issues that a wise reader who has dealt with a lot of unit melt-downs of this sort would consider. When helpin' units work through this sort of thing, that's what yeh do, eh? Calm people down, get 'em to see other perspectives. I think it's especially important not to do the usual Scouter.Com thing and start foamin' at the mouth and gatherin' pitchforks. NACAP's post above I'd put into that category, because there's just no possible way to interpret the information we have as any form of youth protection issue. That's completely ludicrous. But that's the sort of thing that happens when yeh read only one highly biased side uncritically, eh? Adrenaline and (for some) testosterone kick in, yeh get that powerful surge of righteous indignation that comes from watchin' Fox or MSNBC, and pretty soon the adults in the room are doin' and sayin' the most ridiculous things. Besides, I got the parent thing right in my "dreamworld", didn't I? Eagle Coaches by and large are unit scouters, because they are supposed to be chosen at the option of the scout, not "assigned by the district." In this case, though, I interpreted "district representative" to be the representative of the district advancement committee who signed off on the project proposal. In many councils, that same person is the district representative who will sit on da Eagle Board of Review. That person shouldn't be the Eagle Coach, because their role is as evaluator. Like all district volunteers, such people are supposed to support the BSA by helpin' the council in its proper role of supporting the Chartered Organization and units, not by workin' with individual boys. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

In Scouting, there are better ways to instill discipline than the whole push-up thing Yah, I'd generally agree with CalicoPenn on this, eh? Still, I'd probably append the qualifier "for most boys and circumstances." Like the example I mentioned, sometimes a bit of exercise might be the right choice for a particular boy, and it might even be geared toward the particular offense. Still, we all seem to be agreeing that despite the language in the latest SMHB printing, we all would be willing to give out an "enforced physical action" like making 'em sharpen all of the bow saws! Beavah

Yep, that's correct. That's become the norm for many public parks when hosting "events" put on by outside groups, or when allowin' groups to do things like rock climbing or such on their property. It's a nice feature and benefit of bein' involved with the BSA that we can provide this kind of support. B

Yah, echaney, thanks for the additional information, or at least a bit of it. You'll have to forgive us a bit because we don't actually have any documentation, eh? So claims about stuff being "documented" are just claims on this side of the screen. The current Eagle Project process is different than it used to be. Nowadays the district/council only approves the proposal for a project. Then the SM or another advisor has to approve the boy's final project plan. It's also now true that because the project is considered a unit activity for which the troop is responsible, many councils and troops are requiring full adult supervision the way they would for any unit outing. So dependin' on your troop and the availability of other registered adult leaders, it may well have been perfectly reasonable for the SM to take the position he did. Just the way a SM may insist that he be present for the Venture Patrol's whitewater raft trip to ensure proper adult coverage. If I were the boy, I think I would have said "Ok" to this request without makin' a stink. Sure would have been easier. . That's one of those lessons of life and character about choosin' hills to die on. Now let's take a look at a few other things. Yeh seem to suggest that the project was being done for an individual teacher, which is not something that should have been allowed by either the troop or the council. So that makes things more complex. Had it properly been approved by the school, then there probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue. School administrators are more used to dealing with odd adult behavior. The district rep. in this case is somewhat overstepping her bounds, and that isn't a great thing. That kind of thing compromises her position with all units. So what we have is da usual round of hyper adult behavior messing up the kids' program. The SM could have been more flexible about finding other supervision if it was available and should have followed da rule about setting angry emails aside for 24 hours. The district and troop should have done its job in terms of ensuring a proper beneficiary approval before the proposal was approved. The boy should have learned by now that sometimes being a teenager in terms of how yeh behave toward and address adults is not always the most productive thing. The district representative and DE should have learned that their job is to support the CO and the unit, and that talkin' out of school is always inappropriate. And the parent should have learned that most of the time the right thing to do is to support the coach or the referee even when it's a bad call. . Sportsmanship and character, eh? And you've known this fellow as SM for all these years. Unfortunately, all of that is could have would have should have. So often in scoutin' at the council level we can't help the behaviors of adults. So the troop is goin' to continue, without some members. It's no longer your son's troop, so that's all water under the bridge, eh? Scouting is a volunteer endeavor, and when the volunteers don't want to deal with a particular boy, that's their right. We can't hold 'em at gunpoint. . No lad is entitled to the generosity of others. So rather than spend any more emotional energy on the old troop, I reckon you and your son need to be lookin' forward, not back. Perhaps to a crew, perhaps to another troop. As bnelon44 mentions, your son can also ask for an Eagle Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances, provided he has the other requirements complete. That board can approve the current project for the rank despite the lack of endorsement of the sponsor and the troop, though that would be very unusual. But if your son still has other requirements to complete, as I suspect he does, then now is a good time to find a new unit. I'd look for an adult leader who likes dealing with obstreperous teenagers. . Some adults do very well with such kids, while I've found other adults who are more law-and-order with their own children sometimes have a hard time with the more "lively" teens. Good luck with it. Beavah

Oi! BNelon44, there are two types of insurance available through the BSA. The one we're tallking about here is general liability insurance. That one is in force by virtue of the Charter Agreement, has high coverage limits, and applies only if yeh get sued for negligence or some other act for which yeh incur liability. It applies to people who can be negligent, like adults and property owners. Accident coverage is a form of medical insurance, and as such is purchased on per-person basis, either by the council or the unit. It has low coverage limits, and applies on a secondary basis if the insured individual gets hurt during a scout activity. It will never apply to any person outside of the individual members for whom it is purchased, with the exception of guests who are participating because they are considering joining. That is not the insurance we're talking about here. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Echaney, welcome to da scouter.com forums. You've already stated that the boy in question is doin' fine and continuing his scouting progress, so let's let that go for a bit, and take a look at the troop drama yeh seem to be most caught up in. Can I ask what your position in the troop or district is? And can yeh give us a bit of background on the SM and the troop? How long has the troop been around, how long has the SM been around and what's his experience, who the sponsor is, that sort of thing? What you're describing to me sounds like a Scoutmaster who identified some issues with a project, alerted the beneficiary school (as perhaps he quite properly should have done), got their agreement that they weren't comfortable with the project proceeding, and notified the scout. All of that seems perfectly OK to me, and da proper role of a SM. Without havin' a bit more information it's hard to comment. With respect to the unit, let me say that it is very unusual for a unit committee to remove a boy from a troop. Scout leaders by their nature tend to see the best in boys and tend to think they can work with any boy, so removal from a program is almost always over relatively serious behavior issues with the boy or with the parents. I suppose that a boy who proceeded to do a project on someone else's land after being told not to by the SM and the landowner might get there, dependin' on da circumstances. Whatever da reason, though, it would be no surprise that a SM and a CC would discuss that in advance and be in agreement. Far from being a "secret vote", that's what most of us would expect in da relationship between a SM and CC. Given that, my guess is that perhaps you are the parent here, and that that is coloring your perceptions considerably. Most scouters would be more circumspect before accusing a fellow adult of being mentally unbalanced on a public forum, eh? . In that case, what yeh need to understand is that the district folks may be helping your son just because they see it as a duty to a scout, not necessarily because they disagree with the SM or with the unit's decision to remove the boy. In any event, the district folks have no authority to overrule the unit in such a decision or to remove the SM. So give us a touch more information, and perhaps we can give yeh a bit more perspective and advice. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, bnelon44, yeh realize that quote is no help whatsoever, right? You and I and everybody else agree that an Eagle Project is an official scouting activity. But KimnearSeattle's council apparently has one of those more "unique" interpretations, eh? B

And don't ask him to be willing to do pushups as a consequence of behavior if you would not be willing to do so at work if you came to the office late. Yah, hmmm... I sort of get da sentiment here. Well, no, not really. Kids are not adults, campouts are not offices, and scouting is not employment. I think it's OK to send boys to bed, but I would never tolerate a work colleague in most offices who told a fellow adult to go to bed. Tellin' a lad to pick up the trash would be de rigeur, tellin' an office worker to take out da trash might be a violation of contract work rules. Let's not turn scouting into adult office work, eh? While I'm sure that I can still do more pullups or pushups than most scouts, I'm not sure that's really an issue either, eh? I'd think a lad who could do more pushups than his SM would be a source of pride for the boy. Almost part of the fun. This all comes down to Adult Association and our relationships with boys, eh? If yeh don't have da relationship with boys to even imagine being able to pull off the pushups thing in an appropriate way then I agree with yeh completely. It's something that you should never do. The error is in believing that because you can't pull it off it's something that nobody should do. Just because I can't run a marathon is no reason to prohibit others from running a marathon who can do so successfully. Same with folks who have a relationship with kids or a unit culture where occasional exercise is a positive thing. Beavah

Yah, BSA24, I don't reckon any of us here are "charged with" anything, eh? We're just volunteers. Second, Statistics 101 would teach yeh things like correlation is not causation, and that conclusions in a multivariate system cannot be drawn from univariate analyses when there are confounding, multicorrelate, or interaction effects. For those reasons, your two statements are not logically equivalent, eh? The majority of pedophiles may self-identify as heterosexual and identifying as homosexual could still not reduce the risk of molestation. I was suggestin' that yeh study this topic because child abuse is of course a concern for folks as yeh suggest, and yeh might want to develop a better understandin' of it then yeh have at present. But now let's let da thread get back to young adult leaders, eh? Da relative merits of gays in leadership is an Issues & Politics kind of thing. B

Yah, hmmm.. Either your council folks just don't know what's what, or there's been a msjor change in national policy which is goin' to affect Eagle projects across the nation, since a trustworthy scout and unit will have to tell every Eagle project beneficiary that they are assuming liability for the youth work (much of it off site) that scout volunteers are supervising. That should effectively kill all Eagle Projects nationwide, eh? In the short term, have your troop file a tour permit and a request for insurance certificate indicating the City Park as additional insured for your troop attending the science day and volunteering to assist. That clearly is a troop activity, eh? . That should get all da different bureaucrats off the boy's back. Then have your COR go have a sit down with your council's Program Director to express your displeasure and demand clarification. Your COR should insist on a conference call with da national office for confirmation. Since Richard drives by here occasionally and is generally a good egg despite da now infamous "Wheelbarrow Rules", ask that Richard Bourlon, national risk management director, be in on the call. Demand da clarification in writing, and explain that your Chartered Organization considers their action a breach of the Charter Agreement. My guess is just that this is yet another case of how various folks in councils go off da rails when they get memos that they don't really understand, eh? Lots of times folks don't have the background to really understand the issues, and the BSA councils sometimes have a culture of officiousness rather than service. Let us know how it goes one way or the other. Edited to add: moosetracker, requests for insurance certificates listing parks or other property owners as additional insured are a routine thing that can be requested by any troop for a troop activity. However, accident insurance (a scout breaking his leg) is NOT automatic coverage, but rather is optional coverage that may or may not be purchased by the council or unit. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, my experience is very much da same as what Eagledad reported, eh? There are real qualitative differences between da two approaches, and VeniVidi is right, FCFY tends to be associated with troops that have young/immature SPLs . Those young folks tend to think in terms of rotations, filling slots, followin' da job description, etc. Or maybe the adults in their troops think that way. I've never quite figured out which is chicken and which is egg. They're paintin' by the numbers in terms of da program materials, but paintin' by the numbers always gets yeh a poor quality artwork, eh? Da 12-month term kids who are older tend to share duties as SPL and ASPL. They're friends and they cover for each other and work together more. In da units I know with this approach, they are almost co-SPLs, and other troop positions are also strong team-members and contributors, like Eagledad's QM position. The "elections" also tend to be sort of pro forma. It's not like da popularity contest thing. More like the kids sort of work the positions out on their own by consensus and the elections simply ratify the consensus already reached. There are usually other ways where they have stopped painting strictly by the numbers and instead are usin' the program in its general principles to create better art. Beavah

Yah, yeh got cut off there, Basementdweller. And your last example is allowed by G2A, though I'm not particularly fond of hard percentages or hard rules like the ones yeh suggest. I don't think the folks are comin' here for quite da reasons you suggest. I think they're comin' here because they have a situation where they feel Advancement Method isn't working for their unit and their Chartered Organization's goals. They've got cases where they don't feel that da recognition is lining up with the values that they want to encourage. Generally speakin', they notice that when there are specific individual cases that are "off", but what they're really sayin' is "The Advancement Method as we have practiced it in our troop is not helping us reach the goals for kids that we and our Chartered Organization believe in". That's a bad thing, eh? That's a unit chartered partner who is saying that the BSA program as they are practicing it is not living up to the BSA's end of the Charter Agreement. So they're comin' to us tryin' to figure out what they're doin' wrong and how they can make better use of Advancement Method. Dependin' on our individual background, we either imagine in our own heads that they are absolutely right and the kid must be a jerk off, or we imagine in our own heads that the kid is right and they are just jerks who are trying to hold the "unworthy" back. Or hopefully somethin' in between. But those are our hang-ups. What they're really sayin' is that for one reason or another Advancement isn't workin' for 'em, and they're lookin' for help. Beavah

In fact, identifying yourself as a homosexual reduces the chances of child molestation. The vast majority of child molesters and pedophiles say they are heterosexual when asked which adult sex they are attracted to. LOL. Yah, back to statistics 101 for yeh. Let's keep da gays stuff over in Issues & Politics, eh? I agree with E61 that yeh need to walk slowly with folks who are brand new to the community. I'm not sure if that's just a personal prejudice on my part, though. The pedophile community has a lot of Jerry Sandusky types, eh? Long-time, upstanding members of da community. These days, the nation is pretty mobile compared with what it once was, so it might be that folks who move into a community have skills that are in demand, are upwardly mobile, and aren't just hangin' around to insinuate themselves into youth groups. Da risk might actually be less. Beavah

Yah, those were JMHawkins' claims, so I'll leave it to him to respond, eh? What yeh say about martial arts programs is interestin' though. It doesn't hold for the lads I know, but I only know a few. I would think da martial arts programs would consider that a weakness and a failure on their part, eh? Despite that, I'd say JMHawkins' principle still holds in general. Not many honor roll students drop out of school. Not many kids who make Varsity as a freshman stop playing their sport. Not many kids who are local area champs on da Robot Team quit robot club. Not many kids who make lead in the school play as a freshman quit theater. On and on (and those I am personally quite certain about). Even if none of those were true, though, I'd still say that losin' our Eagle Scouts is a failure on our part, and makes all of Scoutin' weaker. Beavah

Yah, acco40, that's exactly what I don't like, eh? I'm a believer in da Uniform Method. It doesn't just apply to clothing. It applies to recognitions as well, eh? The recognition for ranks including Eagle Scout should be uniform within a troop. Like the clothing uniform, it should be the same regardless of class or finances. A symbol of da brotherhood of Scoutin' rather than of the involvement or wealth of parents. B

Yah, I have to agree with fred8033 as well, eh? I'm not fond of da glorified wedding banquet things. B

scouters will continue to interpret things like scout spirit and active in ways they see fit. Yah, good! That's exactly as it should be, eh? Scouters are good people. They know the families and kids in their program. They know their communities and Chartered Organizations. Better than we do at least! They should interpret and use advancement and da other methods in ways they see fit. Beavah

Maybe it just is an indication that your unit has set Eagle as the ultimate goal. In which case your program is weak. I think JMHawkins' point is an excellent one, eh? Not many teenage baseball players quit after making the All Star team. Not many guys doing martial arts quit when the get a black belt. Usually those things indicate a guy who's really, really into the activity, enough so that he's become really good at it. Just like Eagle. If that's not the case for your program, then it probably means your program is weak. Perhaps it's made Eagle the goal. Perhaps advancement has become just tasks to be checked off. Beavah

Instead of putting down those with another viewpoint, how about presenting a persuasive argument in favor of pushup punishment? As I've said, I'm not particularly an advocate of pushups, FScouter. Yeh need to ask other people for that. I'm just an advocate for not turnin' molehills into mountains, eh? I don't think it's necessary to make every discussion into accusations and such. Of course I certainly have used an "enforced physical action" on occasion. Things like makin' kids pick up the mess they left behind. No matter what the printed matter recommends, I reckon most of us will keep on doin' bad stuff like that. Last time I used an exercise response was for a young lad who had drunk a bit too much Mountain Dew and was just squirley. Told him to run around the block. Da ASPL went with him. He got back and said that was fun and then asked if he could do it again. I said "Sure, I'll time you this time." When he returned he was smilin', and ready to do his bit with the rest of the group without any more to-do. I suppose yeh think that I should have given him a time-out, and then when he didn't sit still for that, I should have lectured him, and then when he got belligerent about that, I should have sent him home? That's da way our modern world of ninnies and nannies treats active boys far too often, eh? Beavah

Precious few pedophiles, and being a husband and a parent doesn't make yeh any less likely to be one. Anybody who's worked with Cub Scout packs for a long time knows that one of da biggest issues with packs is the turnover, eh? Leadership is rotatin' out constantly, den leaders are always learnin' a new level as they move up with their kids. Makes for a lot of program weakness. Boy Scoutin', by contrast, seems to attract some young adult Eagles, and Arrowman, and a few Venturers, and folks who are single, and adults who stay as volunteers after their own sons have moved on. That provides more continuity, eh? It also provides some folks who have a broader perspective, who aren't there (primarily) for one particular boy. Finally, it just provides more energy and more hands so that folks don't burn out as easily. Go right ahead, Ohanadad. It's a great idea. Beavah

Nope. Anybody who writes rules or laws depends on the good will and intelligence of those who read, interpret, and enforce those rules to do their part and not make the law or the lawmaker look stupid. Can yeh think of a real law that has managed to be people proof? One that hasn't generated hundreds of pages of regulations or of case law from multiple trials and appeals? If so, then I can assure yeh it was a law that didn't matter in da first place. In our system of law, of course, there is also da fundamental principle of equity, eh? That sometimes what is right and equitable has to modify or trump the common law. Civil society depends on the belief that people will be good and honest about things for the most part, eh? And that they will rightly apply law equitably for both da common and specific good. That's why scoutin' exists in da first place, to teach young fellows how to use their judgment and behave honorably as citizens. Only way I know how to do that is to try to show 'em how to use judgment and behave honorably, and give 'em some room to practice it. Beavah