Beavah

Hello map909, welcome to the forums! No, of course a Board of Review should not be a rubber stamp at any level. It's an important step in the advancement process: a Scout Learns, a Scout is Tested, a Scout is Reviewed. The review, just like the learning or the testing is not automatic. Now, as a unit committee member yeh represent a Chartered Organization, eh? You are responsible for helping that Chartered Organization achieve its goals for boys in the program. If one of those goals is to help boys learn courtesy and comportment in addressing other people and adults, then I'd say of course the board should respond appropriately to a rude comment. It's your duty to do so. What that response is just depends, eh? If the lad used a word like "sucks" that means "lousy" in youth vernacular but which some adults attribute (incorrectly) to be a sexual innuendo, then maybe yeh just inform the lad that he should be careful because that expression could be misinterpreted. If he called an ASM an a**hole, then maybe yeh defer the board of review for a month and let the SM work with the lad on verbal behavior. But no matter what, yeh use the opportunity to do your duty and create a "learning opportunity" for the boy. As to the uniform, again, a bit depends on da goals of your chartered organization. I suppose a few chartered organizations might have a goal of teaching precision dressing, but I don't know any. NJCubscouter describes how most of us would handle that in the context of the BSA program. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

It's not two camps at all. It's about multiple topics. Yah, and probably more than just five of 'em. . Again, my comments aren't about general program. I think most of da experienced scouters includin' me and fred8033 are very much on da same page in terms of general program. We're just talkin' about ways of thinking about and using Advancement Method. As I've said, too, I agree that "two camps" is a simplification, and is also an artifact of the actions by da national advancement group over the past 10-12 years. As those folks went to relatively (in my opinion) inane definitions of things like "active", they generated folks who were supportive or opposed. So that contributed to "two camps". But I'll still stand by that, eh? There is a bit of a split in da community between those who focus on "da requirements" (as written and often viewed minimalistically in the way the national advancement team did) and those who like BrentAllen view things more traditionally. I think my test for identifying the first group is pretty good, eh? They quote "don't add to the requirements" more often than any other advancement guidance (and always without the "subtract" clause) Anyways, as to specifics: IMHO, they are not pre-established if they are not written down. Yah, here's perhaps my biggest difference with fred8033 and NJCubScouter, despite my "Mr. Legalistic" name, eh? . I don't think everything we teach children needs to be written down, including expectations for behavior. It isn't necessary to write a policy that Scout Spirit requires doin' the dishes when it's your turn and it isn't necessary to have a bylaw that being active means actually showing up on an outing during the year. I think it's reasonable to assume that Life scouts in particular have enough intelligence and honor to know that never showing up for an outing is neither active nor supportive of their patrol. In fact, when yeh talk to boys, they often have very clear notions of what it means to be active, and in a strong troop they'll want to enforce that themselves socially. To my mind, writing everything down and turning it into a written contract undermines character development, eh? Yeh can never write everything down. If da focus is just on complying with the letter of what's written, that's the opposite of good character in most cases. It's Enron looking for legal loopholes rather than just being responsible and honest. Character is one of those intangibles that resist written definitions. So I think it's not only possible, but necessary to "enforce" or help boys struggle to meet intangible goals, eh? Goals like character, fitness, and citizenship, and other precious intangibles like Loyalty and Duty. What do you do when a troop messes up? I think yeh acknowledge the screw up and yeh fix it. Here I also disagree with fred8033 because I think "fix it" does not mean yeh give him a patch. That to my mind is cheap and lazy on the adults' part. I think it means yeh get the boy the thing that he missed. So if summer camp gave the lad a pencil-whipped badge for First Aid, what yeh do is that you help him to understand that he was shortchanged, and an honorable person doesn't accept an unearned award (nor does an honorable scouter award it), and then yeh do the work to hook him up with a better First Aid MB counselor so that he can really develop proficiency in first aid and earn the badge. Da same applies to SpencerCheatham's case, eh? If da previous adult leaders screwed up for 3 years, then yeh acknowledge that and yeh fix it. Yeh sit down with the lad, explain the expectations, and help him develop an understanding of commitment to a group and real active participation. Yeh do that with a year left, so he has plenty of time to learn and grow and demonstrate that growth in Scout Spirit to everybody. Yeh meet with him several times along the way to give additional feedback. And then yeh evaluate him on whether those important lessons were learned. SpencerCheatham seemed to do all or most of that, eh? So in fred8033's example about swearing, yep, yeh should have talked to the lad about swearing for 3 years. But having talked to him and given him a full year to improve, yeh also don't sign off on Eagle. Da message that sends to all of your other boys and to your community is that swearing is OK and that you don't care. What do you do when you don't think a scout deserves advancement? That's spelled out in da program materials, eh? If you're the SM, yeh sit with the lad at a SM conference and yeh mentor him on what he needs to do to improve, but yeh don't sign off. If you're a BOR member, yeh vote "no" and yeh explain to the boy why and what he needs to do to improve. Why wouldn't yeh use the mechanisms provided by the scouting program for exactly this purpose? Our job is to help boys learn and grow, and saying "no" is often an important part of that learning and growing. Beavah

Yah, BD, I reckon we all hit that point from time to time. Scouters are generous, community-oriented folks, and at times we all feel that our generosity is being taken advantage of. Sometimes, we really are being taken for granted or taken advantage of, eh? That can be because both adults and kids sometimes need to be taught or reminded about appropriate behavior. I sometimes find I need to have "courtesy talks" with folks - reminding 'em that if someone is giving their time for free, that means yeh have an obligation to honor that with your own personal commitment of time and attention. Lots of times, though, we really aren't being taken advantage of, eh? I reckon it's OK for a family to scrimp and save to take a family vacation to Disney World, even if it means prioritizing that over sending one member of the family to scout camp. That Disney Trip might be the thing that helps keep da family together, to renew commitments to each other. Best we not think of such things as taking away from Scoutin'. So yep, I've paid for lads out of pocket. Many times. It can be hard. But I reckon yeh need to think of it as an investment. Not every investment pays off. Sometimes yeh just lose money on your investment. Yeh buy da Facebook IPO . Yeh send a lad to NYLT only to have him quit. Investments come with risk. Yeh can't let da risk get to yeh, because sometimes those investments hit the home run, eh? Yeh buy Apple In 1998. Yeh provide a boy the experience that changes his life forever. I think we have a lot of the latter in scouting, eh? When yeh talk to former scouts, there are an amazing number of 'em whose scouting experience stuck with 'em a lot longer than school or band or football, and quite a few for whom their scoutin' was a life changing experience. The experience that upped their aspirations, that started 'em on a road to a career, that gave 'em the skills they needed for life. Don't let the failed investments get yeh down, especially when yeh don't yet know whether that investment will pay off in the long term. That NYLT lad 20 years from now may be the scoutmaster for your troop, who carries on the legacy for his own son and other boys. Sometimes the seeds we plant need time to grow. Recognizin' that helps with balance, eh? But like the lads, sometimes yeh need to do other stuff that's important, like take a vacation with your own family. When yeh start to resent the seeds that don't start growing right away, it's time to lay off the gardening and go to a movie. . Sounds like that's where you're at, BD. Time to take a bit of a break. As for the jacka** of a coach, I think yeh call the school's Athletic Director and Principal, and set up a meeting to discuss what da school and community's expectations are for da proper behavior of coaches. Beavah

Nah, Lisabob, Gandhi was an effective lobbyist. He was very cognizant of the decision-making structure of his opponent and how to influence it, and he did take very careful aim at it. If yeh understand that decisions in a democracy are in the end made by the people, then Gandhi's strategy is genius, eh? Because it all turns around appealing to those people. Make salt. Who can object to some people makin' salt from the sea? Who can fail to be outraged over people being beaten and imprisoned over somethin' as silly as making salt? He also was wise enough to take the long view. Now, if da decisionmaker is Bashar Assad and da structure is not a democracy, then perhaps creative non-violent opposition is not the proper approach, eh? Because in such a case, it may well be that he can just shoot enough people to eliminate da opposition. That's the point, eh? To choose an approach that recognizes the interests and decision-making structure of the person or group yeh want to influence, rather than the approach that pleases the group that already agrees with yeh. As can be seen in this thread, the lad chose an approach that pleases the group that already agreed with him. That's not the smart way to proceed. Beavah

Yah, a little bit of Vitamin C will deactivate the iodine, eh? So no worries on the taste. Some of the manufacturers even sell a bottle of Vitamin C tablets along with the iodine tablets for that purpose. For the rest, this is somethin' for the youth to work out. Yeh should set whatever rules yeh want for the use of your Steripen, and communicate those during planning so that there's no confusion or assumptions. Load sharin' is a great idea, as is some redundancy. Me, I'd take the Steripen and the tablets. Leave those dang blasted heavy, bulky, pricey, clog-fest, easy-to-contaminate filters at home . B

Yah, hmmm... Well, there's stuff that's fine, stuff that's edgy but fine, stuff that's not good practice and stuff that's of real concern. As some others have pointed out, it's important to have more than a true or false view of things. Some stuff is "true" but still edgy, and needs to be paid attention to. Some stuff is technically "false", but either unenforceable or not a big deal in some circumstances. In truth, youth protection is a set of guidelines to protect adults and institutions primarily, though alertness to it can also protect kids. The SM is entirely correct that BSA YP guidelines don't apply outside of scouting. If he is a friend of the family, he certainly can with the parents' permission baby sit one-on-one in the evenings, play in the family paintball game, or any number of other things. It's not our prerogative to interfere with a boy's parents' decisions outside of scouting. Nevertheless, depending on the relationship with the family, some things may be imprudent or unwise. So my answers would be somewhat more cautious than most. 1) Yes, BSA guidance ends at the end of an outing, whatever that happens to be. If the norm is that parents are responsible for transportation, then a parent can delegate that responsibility as they see fit. One on one with older brother driver, one on one with uncle Fred, one on one with Mr. Twocubdad who is the normal carpool driver but whose kid is sick at home so he's one-on-one for the last half mile for the last kid. Not a big deal. But takin' a lad to the SM's home to unload... too edgy for my taste under many circumstances. Some COs have stricter outside-of-program ethics guidelines, and may object on that basis. 2) There's no problem with drivin' unrelated youth to events, just no one-on-one. Insurance has nuthin' to do with the uniform. I'd suggest that if the event starts at a particular place and parents are responsible for transportation to that place, then BSA insurance does not come into play for the driving portion, and how each parent manages driving or carpooling is up to them. See above. 3) Da problem here again is one-on-one. I'd have no problem with arriving early with multiple youth. That happens. 4) Creepy! I think if you're doin' scout stuff, it is a scouting event. Again, a bit depends on da relationship with the family, though. If a parent drops their kid off at a long-time family friend's while she goes shopping, and the two work on scout stuff while he's baby-sitting, whatever. Not a big deal. Same with acco's not catchin' it one time. 5) No problem, but a bit edgy. Worth keepin' an eye on. 6) Well, a parent does have authority over their kids and can delegate that to other adults. What do we think Permission Slips for trips are other than a note from the parents that gives scouters authority and responsibility that another adult would not have? However, a parent can't give an adult the authority to override the program's rules, eh? Those belong to the program, not to the parent. So no, this is a misunderstanding of the source of the rule. 7) Well, not technically, but occasionally necessary. Sometimes yeh just have to get a lad away from folks. A boy who needs space to cry out of sight because his mom's dyin' of cancer or whatnot. But those things are rare, and yeh can usually finesse 'em. 8) Well, no, but to be fair the 18-21 year old thing in OA is a bit of a mess. 9) No. 10) Well, maybe. Again, thinkin' of the odd exception like the cancer scenario, where dad is aware and available. Sometimes yeh just do what yeh need to do for a kid in need, especially with the parent's permission. Now, it's fine to acknowledge that in some cases YP doesn't technically apply, or that in others it's sometimes necessary to do somethin' different to take care of a kid. Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. But if yeh have personally witnessed all of this stuff goin' on, and goin' on frequently, and goin' on not in exceptional cases but in the ordinary course of events, and it's bein' done by a fellow who really wanted to get into the SM position, hmmm... Let me say this explicitly and in bold. What you are describing should scare the living daylights out of you, particularly if the man seems to have "favorites" or types of boys he goes one-on-one with. So this old furry Beavah, who always tries to take the balanced approach and has listed all of the various caveats and exceptions above, is tellin' yeh that taken as a whole, you may very well have a serious problem. Not a gentle counseling on better approaches problem, an investigate, talk to the boys involved, and possibly remove-the-man-from-scouting problem. Alternately, if yeh have witnessed none of it, are omitting important pieces or this is some little coffee clatch rumor mill thing goin' on among ex-Scoutmasters, then yeh still have a serious problem. If you and a few others are defaming this man's character through a bunch of gossip and innuendo, then you are the folks who need to be removed from scouting, and someone in the troop should encourage the Scoutmaster to contact an attorney to hit yeh with a very large defamation lawsuit. From afar, I can't begin to tell the difference. So my general advice is that yeh tell the COR and CC just the facts that you personally have observed, and let 'em make their own decisions. Otherwise just stay mildly alert and observant. And stop answering parent emails. Tell the parents yeh aren't interested, and that they need to speak with the SM or CC. Anything else doesn't match with our 12-point Law. Beavah

Yep, fred8033 describes da approach of the opposite "camp" quite well, eh? It's all about "the requirements," and all the responsibility belongs on the adults. That's been the approach of the Irving folks for the past decade or so, until the most recent volunteer effort clipped their wings a bit with the G2A. I'm with da other group, eh? I prefer it bein' all about the Aims, and followin' the intent of the Rules & Regulations that are supposed to guide da organization. Rather than numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 I'd look to what the CO and adult leadership were tryin' to accomplish and teach all the boys in their troop, not just the boy in question. Our role in the BSA is to help units and chartered organizations achieve their goals. SpencerCheatham was describin' that they'd failed, so I was tryin' to help him in understandin' how to use Advancement Method better to achieve his goals for youth. To my mind it's OK if those don't happen to be fred8033's goals or those of fred8033's chartered organization. If you're SpencerCheatham or me or a traditional scouter, then when I counsel Canoeing MB I take boys canoeing. We paddle lakes, we paddle rivers, we try different types of canoes. In the end, the boys learn how to canoe. Learning how to canoe, they will of course meet the Canoeing MB requirements, but the focus wasn't on "the requirements." The focus was on the fun and pleasure of buildin' canoeing skills. The Aims. That's not movin' the goalposts, that is the goal. By contrast, if you're in the other group, the focus of Canoeing MB is to work on da requirements of Canoeing MB. Often times in order, in a class, with a worksheet. In the first case, when you're done you've got the makings of a new life skill, and a card and patch as an outward sign of that inward growth. In the second, when you're done and have all the signatures, odds are yeh probably don't really know how to canoe, eh? Because knowin' how to canoe involves not just being able to do individual skills, but to know when to do individual skills, and how hard, and how to exercise judgment and all the rest. There's no real personal growth in character or judgment from a worksheet or blue card or other sort of focus on "the requirements". The personal growth - our real aim - comes from learnin' how to canoe. That's why we have the Rules & Regulations telling us that proficiency in canoeing and other skills is required for Boy Scout Advancement, and that the policy of the BSA is that a lad should get the full benefit of the personal attention and mentoring of a counselor, not da worksheet from a classroom lecture. Same with all the other requirements. It's not holdin' office or gettin' a signature for holdin' office that leads to growth. It's engagin' deeply with a POR and strugglin' and improvin' and meeting commitments. It's not being registered that leads to character. It's viewin' being registered as a commitment to others, eh? A commitment that takes effort and time to fulfill even when you'd rather do somethin' else. That's what leads to character. That's again why da Rules and Regulations define active as a personal obligation of the scout to regular participation. Most troops don't do the legalistic thing of establishing percentage participation requirements and all the rest. In fact that's somethin' that most of us have always discouraged. Instead, they have social expectations established by their youth leaders. The youth leaders and adults of a troop only retreat to the percentage nonsense when they feel they've really been taken advantage of by someone. Even then I think that's a bad idea. Far better to have the youth and adult leaders sit down with the lad in question and explain the expectations. That's what SM conferences and BORs are for. "We like what you've done in terms of your MB work, but yeh still haven't met our expectations for being active in your patrol and the troop" is a fine mentoring conversation for a BOR to have with a lad in a troop. That to my mind is what SpencerCheatham's troop did. The standards were in place before, which is why all of the adults (and I expect youth) in his troop realized they weren't being met in this case. Those standards were accepted and personally adhered to by the other active scouts in the troop. Yeh don't have to have a Troop Policy Book of 50+ pages enumerating attendance percentages and allowable exceptions, and in fact yeh shouldn't. Yeh just have to have a common sense of character and commitment that's consistent. Now I will say that one of da biggest sources of contention in Scouting is when youth and parents from one "camp" transfer or join a troop of the other "camp". So I think the ideal thing is to have a very explicit version of that conversation up front with the youth and parents, before yeh accept an application. That may or may not have happened in this case; it was before SpencerCheatham's time. Beavah

Yah, nothin' wrong with it. Glad the folks at the meeting met with the young man and handled it well. As an Eagle Scout, though, I would have hoped somewhere along the way the lad had been taught about effective lobbying and citizenship. As nldscout describes, presentin' an online petition might make yeh feel good, or make yeh the darling or spokesperson of your side, but it's not goin' to be effective. To be effective, yeh have to understand da motivations and needs of fellow scouters and address 'em, or understand the mechanisms of decisionmaking within an organization and how to work with 'em effectively. So I think his Citizenship MB counselors and troop let him down a bit by not developin' the "mentally awake" stuff and understandin' of governance in the ways that they could have. Or he just didn't do his homework. Beavah

Interestin'. This might be one of the rare cases where yeh want to consider incorporating, eh? Establish yourself as a legitimate, incorporated Chartered Organization. Get a friendly attorney to help yeh through the process in your state and handle the 501©(3) application. That will take some effort and cost some money, and take some extra effort each year, but it might be the way to go in your case. As another anonymous person on the internet who can't give legal advice, I agree completely with NJCubScouter with respect to how to handle your current equipment if yeh elect to charter with another entity. Beavah

A $15 trillion dollar deficit is not a big deal at the moment because yields on long-term U.S. Treasury Bonds are at absolute historical lows, eh? Less than 1.6%, with inflation running at around 2.5%. In other words, we're making a 1% return on every dollar we borrow. People are paying the U.S. treasury to loan us money. Who wouldn't borrow money at a negative interest rate? We should be borrowin' like mad. Now, it's important what we do with that borrowed money, eh? Investin' in infrastructure is good. That will lead to economic growth and more taxes and a higher return. Paying Medicare bills or keepin' our Marines in Afghanistan is bad, economically speakin'. That won't lead to economic growth and more taxes, and will mean we won't be in as good a position when those bonds eventually mature. As a conservative policy, the Fair Tax is a fine thing. Lots of advantages. A few downsides that aren't well described on the site. And of course da politicians can muck anything up. For an OK independent analysis of the FairTax, try http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html B

Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon moosetracker read me exactly right, eh? The council and national are goin' to do what they do. They're responsible for their own choices. The Scoutmaster is only responsible for his choice, and his duty to the mission of the Chartered Organization. He should do he feels is best for his personal integrity and his unit. SpencerCheatham very clearly has stated that in his opinion and that of his unit leadership, the lad didn't meet the active or Scout Spirit requirements. So quite properly, SpencerCheatham and his troop committee should not sign off that they believed the lad met the requirements. As an aside, we had a lad like this once, who came from a neighboring council's troop, with signed book for POR and active. The troop he joined was very much like SpencerCheatham's, and wouldn't sign off under similar circumstances. When it was looked into it was discovered that in fact the boy had never met his former troop's expectations for POR or active either. He was venue shoppin' for Eagle, with some help from dad's pen in his book. Now, let's take a brief look at NJCubScouter's arguments above. I reckon they're reasonably well thought out, despite the personal name-calling. Though I'm rather fond of Mr. Legalese I have no doubt that NJ's troop does a fine job teaching character in all the ways he describes. Having fun outdoors, doing service, going camping, working in patrols. He's a passionate fellow and a committed scouter, and boys absolutely will learn great lessons from Outdoors Method and all the other things he mentions. This thread, though, is about Advancement Method, and how to use Advancement Method well. Like all 8 Methods, yeh see troops that do 'em well, and troops that do 'em OK, and troops that do 'em poorly. SpencerCheatham is askin' how to do a better job with Advancement Method in his troop, because he and the other adults in his program didn't like the outcome they experienced most recently. So we're tryin' to help him figure out what to do better. I think Advancement Method works best when the recognition a lad receives through a patch lines up with the recognition he receives socially from peers and adults. Boys really crave that social recognition, eh? To be seen by their peers as being really good at something. To be recognized by adults they respect as being worthy of trust in some area. Young boys, though, don't always know how to get there, eh? So Advancement Method lays out signposts and milestones for 'em. "These are the things yeh need to work on and struggle with and grow into in order to earn the respect of others." It's that respect which is key, eh? Not the patch or the party. And that respect yeh earn not by tickin' off "requirements", but by workin' the area and learnin' the habits and skills which merit respect, and which also along the way allow you to meet the requirements. SpencerCheatham told us that the respect wasn't there. So for his unit, Advancement wasn't set up right, and wasn't working. That should be fixed if he wants to use Advancement Method well. Is use of Advancement Method more of a continuum? Well, yah, sure. But from what I see from knowin' a lot more than one troop, there really are the makings of two distinct philosophical "camps" in the BSA at present, so that's a fair approximation. Those groups come out here on da forums. Yeh can tell one of 'em because they'll squalk "don't add to the requirements" more often than any other written statement in all of the advancement literature, and they never mention that "subtract" bit. Or all those inconvenient Rules & Regulations. Of course just like every Scoutmaster believes his troop is youth run, every scouter also believes that their approach to Advancement is the correct one, and is just a means to an end. But when yeh see many troops, yeh get a sense for where they really put their treasure, and it isn't always where they claim. Helpin' 'em see that is part of helpin' 'em get better, eh? That feedback is a gift. Beavah (aka Mr. Legalese!)

I am basically being accused of being "too lenient." (Although I don't think anyone has used those exact words.) Yah, I reckon that the reason no one has used those exact words is because it's not what we really think, eh? I think da fundamental difference in philosophy is that some folks for all practical purposes view "the requirements" as the goal. That group believes that "the requirements" are the goal no matter what "the requirements" are, or how "the requirements" are interpreted, eh? There's reasons for that approach too, eh? It's often because either in reality or in their imagination those folks have experienced a scouter who they felt unfairly judged a lad negatively. Like any coach or referee or teacher, bad calls by scouters do happen in Scouting. We all know that because we all have made bad calls from time to time. So their response is to want discretion removed as much as possible, and want "the requirements" interpreted in da strictest, easiest, most legalese sense. With that approach, if yeh think about it through a kid's eyes, that means the paperwork signifying "the requirements" is the goal. We see that in U.S. Scouting a lot. So long as the paperwork is complete, the requirements are complete, the advancement is complete, nothing can be done, the boy has "earned" advancement, and we have succeeded. A smart lad in such a system should pursue the fastest route to a signature. For the rest of us, the goals really are character and citizenship and skills development, eh? So we see a lad with First Aid MB who can't really do first aid as a failure skills development in our program. We see a boy who doesn't demonstrate loyalty and commitment as a member of a community as a failure of citizenship development in our program. For us, those are also failures of the Advancement Method, because the method failed to motivate, reinforce, and recognize the things that it should have. In fact, we believe the only point of advancement is to motivate and reinforce real learning, real citizenship, real character. If it doesn't do that - if Eagle Scout or Lifesaving MB or whatnot don't mean somethin' real in the eyes of the youth and community, then we might as well do away with it. Sending an Eagle Scout badge to every 13 year old in the nation would do less harm. So us folks in da second group are more comfortable with a non-legalistic interpretation of "the requirements", because in the end we feel that skills and character and citizenship are not a matter of law. We recognize that although bad calls will be made, the overwhelming majority of scouters are good people with caring hearts and some real wisdom for kids, who can be trusted to make those calls. A smart lad in such a system should pay attention to what his scout leaders are tryin' to teach him about behavior and life, and really work to learn skills well, because that's what will be recognized. Perhaps even without paperwork or the presence of three registered committee members. That's why Advancement works. Those two philosophies aren't compatible, eh? Folks will never agree. I personally think the latter is more consistent with the long-time scoutin' program and the Rules, which define the purpose of Advancement (education), the standards for advancement (proficiency), the proper way to interpret guidebooks and requirements (must harmonize with the Aims), and the definition of active (commits himself to regular participation). I think that if Spencer's troop did not sign this Scout's application, and he asked council for a BOR anyway, he would be an Eagle Scout, either at the council level or by an appeal to national. Yah, perhaps. Or perhaps not. SpencerCheatham's unit did meet with the lad well nigh a year in advance, explain that he hadn't yet met and wasn't meeting their active and Scout Spirit requirements, and spelled out clearly what the expectations were. They reinforced that several times. From where I sit, they met all of the unit expectations detailed in the current Guide to Advancement. The lad had every opportunity. So for our council, I'd expect the EBOR and any council-level appeal to say "no". Da real point though is "Who cares?" Who cares what the council or national office does? They're a big corporation, with monetary and other incentives to pass out awards, eh? They'll do whatever they do. The CO shouldn't care, it should act accordin' to its own mission. The unit scouters shouldn't care, they should act accordin' to their own conscience and understandin' of the CO's mission. And if we're honest, the lad himself probably doesn't care. The boy doesn't want a medal mailed in a box from a warehouse at Supply. Not really. He wants the recognition of the adults and peers of his unit. Beavah

Yah, I'd go with (and have gone with) TwoCubDad's approach. That havin' been said, there's an old tale about a fellow who wanted to marry a young lady, but she told him she'd only marry a man with the face of a saint. So he went off to a makeup artist and had his visage costumed, with a mask that made him appear saintly. He wooed her and married her and they spent many years together happily. All the time he kept up his costume. Of course to pull off the act, he also had to work frightfully hard each day to demonstrate that he actually was the saintly, considerate fellow that his costume portrayed. Then one day an old acquaintance of his came to town and recognized him and spilled the beans. In front of the man's true love, he unmasked the man. And underneath the mask was the face of a saint. So while I'd counsel the scout and the scout's parent(s) out of Scouting, at the same time I think that a lad who stays in and is genuinely willing to work on Scouting and Advancement is like the man with the face, eh? He's puttin' on a good face, but the work required to become an Eagle will change him and make him into an Eagle if he's genuinely willing to do it. Provided of course that your program is strong and your interpretation of the requirements is sound. It should not be possible in any troop's program for the "minimums" for Eagle Scout to yield a lad who is not truly an Eagle at heart. Beavah

The boys see any hypocracy if adults words don't match their actions; i.e., if adults talk charcter, citizenship, fitness, while at the same time implenting an awards program that gives awards to those scouts that the scouts themselves would not choose to give an award to. Yah, I think VeniVidi has the right of this, eh? The advancement method only works for our aims if we follow the Rules & Regulations that we agreed to, which state that interpretation of all of the advancement requirements must be aligned with the Aims and Goals of Scoutin'. The notion that NJCubScouter expressed - "He MET THE REQUIREMENTS, so he gets the rank. Maybe his leaders don't feel as proud of him as they would if he camped eight times a year and served as SPL and JASM. Maybe he's not proud of himself. It doesn't matter." I think is exactly wrong. That is a violation of the Rules and is Scoutin' at its adult-run worst. To my mind, far from not mattering, it's the only thing that matters. For Eagle or any Advancement to be worth a lick, it must be aligned with the Aims and Goals of Scoutin'. The boy has to genuinely believe he has done something worthwhile that merits recognition. The adult leaders have to genuinely recognize the boy as an example of leadership and citizenship and character. The boy's peers and fellow scouts have to know and look up to the fellow and say "That's what I want to be some day (and I will work hard, and improve my character and skills to get there)". That's how Advancement Method works, eh? It provides a path to genuine social recognition, which the boys crave. There's nothin' that's a bigger failure of Advancement Method than a case where peers and adults and the boy himself feel that he has earned a Paper Eagle. Nuthin' worse for the future of a troop than a big Eagle Banquet where most of the kids go "Who is this guy? I haven't seen him in 4 years. He was never there for me." I've sat with outstanding young scouts who have decided not to go for Eagle because some undeserving boy "earned" it and they were disgusted, and no longer wanted any part of it. They felt betrayed by the adults. They felt lied to. And they were right. That's not what we want in Scoutin'. We want to be able to celebrate real achievement. Pride in himself, pride in his community and Eagle Scout should go hand in hand. If they don't, then like JMHawkins says it's somethin' that yeh have to fix in your program. SSScout Yeh might want to spin off a new thread for the topic. While I agree with CalicoPenn that in such a case I'd figure the SM should just sign off on T-2-1 at the same time, my real advice to the Scoutmaster and MBC would be that they need to change what they're doin'. Unless the boy has a pair of physicians for parents and came into the troop from his most recent rotation as an ER volunteer, an average 11 year old is not goin' to achieve proficiency in the T-2-1 requirements for first aid in 6 hours, let alone really earn First Aid MB. They're cheatin' their kids by subtractin' from the requirements. Read TwoCubDad's excellent post. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, regardless of our desire to do precision scoutin' by chapter and verse, moosetracker has the right of it, eh? The simple reality is that from a practical point of view, this stuff is up to the units. I have never yet seen any unit anywhere that doesn't fail to follow some of the program guidelines in some way or another, but most of those units run fine programs. I still know some units that use scouts on BORs. Works quite well for 'em. I'm not sure we can really say with any degree of certainty that doin' it that way - the way the BSA did it for many years - isn't as good as havin' a bunch of MCs doin' BORs without the boys. For one thing, da current all-MC approach deprives the youth leaders of a role that they can do just fine, eh? A classic case of breakin' the Youth Leadership method. I'd say an even larger number of troops use ASMs on BORs, especially if there aren't enough MCs around or the board is conducted in the field. Just not the same person who did the SM conference. And I've been glad to participate on any number of BORs at camp for different troops, where they invited not just the rovin' commish but a neighboring troop's scouter. Those are really interestin' and fun, because yeh get new perspectives and the lad gets a sense that this Scouting thing really is bigger than just his own troop. Other people care about his advancement. Honestly, I reckon da biggest weakness in the system is committee members who don't really understand the advancement system and scoutin' methods more generally, who are asked to fill a seat on a BOR. I don't think this really benefits the boy most of the time, nor the troop. It's also hit or miss whether the MC takes away a good lesson unless there's a good "senior" BOR member to help coach. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... Yeh know, if yeh talk to most coaches, they will tell yeh that the real purpose of sports is not to develop skill kickin' a ball around, it's to develop character and teamwork. Same as Scouting. Now, here's a question. In that sports program whose real goal is to develop character, a lad does a great job as a middle school athlete in some other school. Good enough that his other school thought he could make Varsity as a freshman had he stayed. At his current high school, he shows up for one practice out of three. Over the course of four years, he attends not a single game. Doesn't even come out to cheer. Now, by all reports he is a fine young fellow. Done a good job for the school newspaper, got solid grades, etc. The school is proud of him. Does he deserve a Varsity Letter? Do we think that any sports program anywhere in da country would give him one, based on reports of his general character as assistant editor of the newspaper? Has his commitment to the team demonstrated the sort of character that the team should recognize? I think we all know the answer, eh? The question is why we believe scouts should demonstrate less character and commitment than would be expected of kids kickin' a ball around a field. Now the lad who struggles with his chosen sport, who comes to every practice for four years, who makes every game even though he rides the bench much of the time, who cheers for and supports his comrades - in many if not most sports programs, that boy will get a Varsity letter in his senior year. He has demonstrated commitment and character throughout his career. OGE You have two scouts, Scout A is gangbusters on Advancment... Then Scout B, he is not a ball of fire. I think like the example above, Scout A was a fine middle school lad, but his scoutin' program was a failure. And that's the real question, eh? What SpencerCheatham is talkin' about is not the worth of the boy, but the quality of the program. He wants his troop to be higher quality, with vision and standards. If yeh have a program where your gangbuster enthusiast middle schooler races through the ranks and drops out, you've failed. Yeh haven't taught important lessons about loyalty and givin' back. Yeh haven't demonstrated the joy of helpin' mentor others in a way he could grasp, yeh haven't held the interest of your best and brightest. Your program needs work. Hopefully whatever other activity he has moved on to will teach the lad the lessons he didn't learn from Scoutin'. By contrast, Scout B was a win. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I am not sure the scout leader even caught on that that he was dealing with a boy with a mild disability. Yah, not to put to fine a point on it, Cricket, but why in the blazes didn't yeh tell the poor man? Scout leaders are fine people, but they can't always read minds. If they know in advance that a lad has a physical or emotional issue, then they can ask questions, think about approaches, and put in place the kinds of things that the boy will need for support. Half way across the lake is not the time to find out that a lad has a seizure disorder and that's why yeh suddenly have a real-life lifesaving scenario when yeh were expecting only a nice paddle trip. B

Second Class: >>I'd suggest yeh start by havin' your SPL or PLC go over the roster each year at recharter time and tellin' yeh who should be dropped from the roster because they haven't met their commitment or duty to the program as an active member. Really, you would do this? And I guess you have, since you suggested it. How did that work out for your unit? What did you tell the parents of the scouts deemed "not worthy"? Yah, sure. In da troops I'm familiar with that do such things, it was the PLC that requested it at least half the time. If yeh have a real youth-led, patrol-method troop, the youth leaders become really frustrated with no-show scouts, eh? Because they're puttin' in all kinds of time and effort to provide a good program and they feel they're being taken advantage of. Those no-show scouts as younger fellows also don't develop skills very well, so they constantly require extra effort by their PL and the scouts who do show up. When it's older boys who are no-shows, the other older boys who have worked hard to help their patrol and the troop, and have given up other things to that hard work because they felt some loyalty and obligation to the troop - they feel cheated. Ask 'em. They'll tell yeh. So from what I've seen it's worked out just fine for those units. They tend to have very active programs with enthusiastic scouts in high-performing patrols. Attendance expectations are part of just about every other youth program, eh? So da parents are very familiar with the routine and understand it completely. Buy-in is pretty easy from both kids and parents, and of course the PL will warn a boy in advance. Usually there's positive peer pressure as well. Again, this assumes real patrol method and youth leadership; in an adult-run unit the dynamics are different, eh? SpencerCheatham Yep, SpencerCheatham, yeh can have rules for your troop. Pretty much whatever yeh can think of. If BrentAllen is around somewhere he'll chime in and tell yeh his troop uses the quote from GreenBar Bill and the old Scout Handbook: "The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If we put our own time into the activities of this Troop, we shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness." To most youth leaders and many adults, that's just part of courtesy and character, eh? A patrol is a team, and yeh show up to support your team. So that's the second thing I think yeh should look at, eh? How are yeh usin' patrol method and youth leadership? If your patrols are strong and youth leadership sound, they'll be pushin' some of the rules yeh want themselves. Fred 8033 is right, eh? Advancement is only one piece of da puzzle. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, SpencerCheatham, that's the right way to think about things, eh? If yeh aren't seeing the kinds of outcomes you want from your program, then yeh have to sit with the other adult leaders and figure out how you're goin' to change your program in order to achieve better outcomes. That's how all troops (and boys!) grow and improve. My experience has been that by and large most troops become larger and more successful based on how high the expectations are that they set for their boys. The higher the expectations, the more proud the lads are of being a scout, the more the parents see the value in the program, the higher the participation, the stronger the youth leadership and the skills. Those are the units where the high school boys don't fade away for three years. Keep that vision. Shoot for it. Push yourself and your troop and your boys. What we see too often is the other side, eh? When folks don't set high expectations, they try to substitute awards for real achievement. So it becomes a game of handin' out patches, because not handin' out patches would mean they'd actually have to take a closer look and work harder at improvin'. Kids fading out in favor of other activities becomes normal. Heck, being absent even becomes a virtue in some folks eyes. I reckon they just never talk to their truly active scouts about what they feel about it, because by and large those kids wouldn't agree at all. Don't settle for that kind of weak program, eh? Work with your fellow adults and active youth leaders to chart a different course. I'd suggest yeh start by havin' your SPL or PLC go over the roster each year at recharter time and tellin' yeh who should be dropped from the roster because they haven't met their commitment or duty to the program as an active member. Adults too. Beavah

Yah, I've heard tell of some 11-year-old first year scouts who quite literally didn't know how to tie their own shoes, eh? And not lads who were strugglin' with a physical disability. I reckon Eagledad was talkin' about one of those in a general sort of way, not tryin' to be judgmental of anyone's individual circumstances. Even then, though, Ltfightr, yeh have to start thinkin' about what's your son goin' to do without you? At school? At sports? He needs to learn some techniques or tools to cope on his own, even if it's just becomin' comfortable with askin' for help from a stranger. Beavah

Yah, I had to laugh at Kudu's answer, eh? That seems to be about the size of it, even in how some experienced folks are considerin' it here. To answer SpencerCheatham's question, NO!, of course not. Our mission is the development of character, and advancin' this lad to Eagle would be the wrong lesson for him, and the wrong lesson for all of the other boys. It would defeat our mission. Lawyerin' what the meaning of "active" is is like former presidents tryin' to dispute what the meaning of "is" is, eh? It's an example of poor character. We must not teach that to our scouts. The troop set expectations for active. They notified the lad that he had not met their expectations for active. They suggested ways he might improve and demonstrate that he was active. He did not follow through. They did everything they needed to do, the lad did not meet the requirement. Goin' to prom is not a valid alternate activity. Valid alternate activities have to do with caring for your mom who is undergoin' chemotherapy, where your obligation as a family member or citizen is such that proper scout spirit demands you be absent from the troop. Now, I agree with OGE and others, eh? Da real issue here is that this boy should have been dropped from your roster 3 years ago, since he clearly was not an active member. Chalk that one up to a lesson learned. But that failure on your part of leavin' the light on for him does not mean he gets a free pass for doin' nothin'. Nor does it mean that yeh are obliged to lie on the Eagle application about what yeh think. We honor today the men who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. Expectin' no award other than the award of service to a cause greater than themselves. Not only did they show up... not only did they sacrifice their prom, and their social club at home, and their comfort... not only did they work and give their utmost... they persevered in the face of horror and despair until they gave the ultimate sacrifice to their brothers in uniform and the cause for which they gathered. Many of 'em no older than this lad. Boy Scoutin' is a man's world, boy-sized. Teach your boys that honor demands that they show up, and that those who don a uniform but aren't willin' to serve or sacrifice for it aren't worthy of the honors that rightfully accrue to those who do. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I agree with jblake, eh? The stuff that sticks is the stuff that's functional. I'm not sure that flags are functional anymore, save in the odd Jambo situation described. Flag signaling and identifying regiments by flag on the field have long since gone by the wayside. Patrol yells / patrol cheers / patrol slogans / patrol noises / patrol songs or somethin' that resembles 'em will come about naturally in a patrol method troop where there's some patrol competition. It's natural to cheer for your team or come up with mottos or jingles. The reverse isn't true, eh? Requiring patrol yells will not naturally lead to patrol method. Beavah

Yah, in da previous thread there were some questions from Brewmeister about patrol yells and flags. Does your troop have these for real? Or do they just make ones up for the boys goin' for Tenderfoot? How do yeh make that work?

Yah, Jtex1234, it just depends, eh? There are as many ways of doin' this as there are Chartered Orgs and units. If you're settin' things up for your Chartered Org., then yeh have to decide based on your organization's character and mission. The BSA's suggested method is that a subcommittee of experienced folks discuss things, reach consensus on first, second, etc. choices, and then go recruit the folks for approval by the COR. In practice, the unit committee typically takes that role rather than a subcommittee in most (but not all) units. So the committee discusses things and either reaches consensus or votes, and recruits, and sends their recommendation to the COR. In some units, all da parents are considered committee members, and so they all get a say and a vote. Some Chartered Partners, like PTOs, prefer this approach for institutional reasons. In my opinion, this approach isn't usually the best, because it can lead to a lot of contention and hurt feelings and developin' "camps" among the parents. In a small, homogeneous, like-minded group it's OK... at least until someone isn't like-minded. There are all kinds of other variants out there, to be sure. No one right way. But I'd advise anyone to steer clear of a general vote by all the parents unless their CO had a particular investment in that approach. Is somethin' goin' on in you pack that we can be helpful with? Beavah

Yah, mrface2112, welcome to the forums! I hear yeh. See this a lot at cub events in particular. A few thoughts for yeh. First, is your event tailored to the age and attention span of the kids? By and large, I think Cub Scout B&Gs and similar events are terrible events for the kids. Looonnnggggg, droning affairs where adults spend as much time recognizin' each other or listenin' to themselves talk as they do recognizing the boys. So that's the first order of business, eh? Decide whether this is for the lads or for the adults. If it's for the lads, plan it to meet their needs and keep it snappy. Practice in advance, keep to your timing like it's a solemn vow, have lots of action, and breaks, and changes of pace. If it's for the adults, let the kids go run off and play after the first bit. Second, practice in advance. Rehearse with the boys at den or pack meetings. Be consistent. Work steadily toward da goal over several years. Yeh can't expect the lads to suddenly stay seated and quiet at the most excitin' event of the year. Yeh have to build up that norm at your other meetings throughout the year. Teachin' behavior is a long campaign, eh? Don't focus on individual battles won or lost. Most important here is to get buy-in from your den leaders, and coach 'em a bit. Ever visit your son's elementary school? Lots and lots of procedural and behavioral practice. Lots and lots of explanation. Lots and lots of gentle personal correction rather than tryin' to control the whole group. Yeh can steal some of this, eh? And yeh can build off the school norms that the kids already know. Ask da school principal or your son's teacher what they do at school. Those things will be somethin' the kids are used to that you can borrow. Third, yeh have to decide about parents. Parents are hard to change, eh? Oft as not their own yacking to each other sets the tone. If yeh think yeh can get 'em on board, set expectations for parents monitorin' their kids behavior gently, friendly, firmly in advance at a pack committee meetin' or in person or whatnot. This yeh might be able to do, but it might be better comin' from an older person, church COR, etc. - someone who isn't perceived as a "peer" parent. Grandmotherly authority figure type. But because parents are hit or miss, yeh mostly want the lads to be seated by den with their den leader, just the way they've practiced all year. Lastly, yeh have to lighten up a bit, eh? It's cub scoutin', not church. They're elementary school kids. A certain amount of chaos goes with the territory. Beavah