Sentinel947

Your Scouts read the joining application? http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406A.pdf. Unless I'm misreading it. It doesn't require or expect the Scout to read it. Furthermore it's not in the requirement for Scout rank. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/524-012_BS_Requirements.pdf I'm not sure how you expect the Scout to know. His parents? Sure. His troop leaders? Yea. His Council. Yes. I know for sure I never even saw the youth application when my parents signed me up roughly 11 years ago.

Haha. Good on you! Knows if something is fishy, to look for answers. Going to Wood Badge. Good stuff!

Welcome, feel free to introduce yourself in the new member sub forum at the top of the forum if you haven't already. Sentinel947

I'll echo what Krampus and qwazse said. Its up to the Troop committee. If somebody has issues with the Scoutmaster, they need to talk to the CC about it. It's impossible to say what the Troop should do, with only half the story, so forgive us if we don't endorse a particular course of action here. As with removing a SM, the transition needs to be planned out well, and expect to lose that SM and his kids if the Troop removes him by force. Not something I'd want to do unless the Scoutmaster's conduct is clearly out of line. That's for your CC and Institutional Head to decide.

@Krampus I'm sympathetic to the rules and process argument. I'm also sympathetic to the life lesson that is learned here. Again, if that's something the Council decides, I can get behind it and execute it. As for accountability, we should be holding kids accountable, but this Scout doesn't have anything to be accountable for. Since he wasn't the one who created the situation. Why aren't we holding the adults accountable? Lets talk about how you plan to make those who actually broke the rules fix the problem. Hopefully Cherokee Scouter comes back and gives us what the council decides. I bet this happens more often than people admit and I'd love to know what the powers that be decided. I'll say Krampus, if you've made it this far in my post, that I'm starting to swing towards your point of view. I do think it's a reasonable. Especially if the parents and the Scouts agree, it's one way to fix the problem without involving the council. It's a good lesson to teach, if it's handled properly. If the Scout and his parents don't like that solution, It's on the council to make a decision. Sentinel947

Ultimately, neither of us work for the BSA, so this is an opinion forum. In the end, it's whatever his council or even National decides. I'll agree that if he's actually learned the skills, redoing them should be pretty easy. If that's what the powers that be decide, I'd certainly not protest. I'll agree it's a workable solution to the problem. I don't agree it's the ideal solution to the problem. Hedgehog above me outlines a pretty decent way to correct the problem. I could be on board with that. Somebody screwed up, and put the Scout in the program before he was eligible. You know who wasn't responsible for that? The Scout. The Scout has demonstrated his ability to complete the requirements, even if he wasn't eligible. What is the purpose of requirements? To check off boxes or to learn skills? He's already learned them. Are you really comparing your 17 year old to a 9 year old? A 17 should have much better understanding of what he's eligible for and what he is not. A 9 year old likely has no idea what the age requirements are for being a Scout. Neither does most 11 year old children. Your 17 year old better well know that 18 years old is the end of the advancement program. I don't find a child to a man comparable. Ultimately, his parents screwed up, his troop screwed up, and the council office screwed up. Make them fix the problem. Not the Scout. Just my opinion. I don't buy the slippery slope argument. One fix to a single local problem does not make a National precedent and cause all the rules to be thrown out. I'm still amazed how nobody caught this. Sentinel947

I agree. I think remaking the scout redo requirements is the definition of pencil whipping.

Bringing up the sex abuse crisis doesn't invalidate my statement. ​Furthermore, it doesn't relate to the discussion at hand. ​While the cover up of sex abuse is/was unacceptable, the BSA and the Public School system is/was often just as complicit. Back in the 60s-70s medical professionals thought sex abusers could be rehabilitated. It pains me to see the Church go through gymnastics trying to shift guilt and deny what happened. Accept it, pay up, make changes move on. Losing a couple hundred priests in the short term will hurt, but the future gains of priests in the future, who can trust the institution to do the right thing, is far more important. ​In short, one Catholic Bishop deciding that the GSUSA is not an organization he wants his diocese to support doesn't make him a hypocrite. Even if you do not agree with his interpretation (and I do not.) Furthermore he cannot prevent Catholics from being affiliated with the GSUSA or the BSA. He can 't even prevent Churches from sponsoring units. He's making a suggestion, and it's up to Parish's to make their decision. ​The irony of non-Catholics telling Catholics how to run their church and live their religion is rich indeed. On what authority do you decide who's living Christianity and who's not SSScout?

Keep on keeping on. Like you, I'm an ASM. We both have realized we have to smartly pick and choose what battles to wage. Can't win everything all at once. Sounds like things are going in the right direction, so don't get discouraged.

So many experts on Catholicism that aren't actually Catholic. Bishop can decide what ministries his diocese supports or not. I'd be disappointed if my Bishop made that decision, but it's his prerogative.

Right. We have this discussion every other month or so. Some Troops make mixed age patrols work, some use NSPs. I think both are fine uses of the patrol method, if they are done properly. Both are fine ways to foster youth leadership, if done properly. In the end this is one of those areas of Scouting discussion where both sides can be right, and everybody has to find out what works best for them. ​As for your Adult sign off situation, have you tried talking to the SM and CC about the practice? What did you say? How was your input received?

Agreed with Stosh. My Troop has had NSPs since it was started in the 90s. Adults don't sign off requirements. The Troop guides do.

It's clear to us, but it doesn't seem to be such common knowledge across the BSA.

I wouldn't say we discourage merit badge colleges (although I do personally) but it's more about encouraging the patrol method, high adventure and the outings over advancement as a whole. You know, the fun aspects of scouts. The advancement comes naturally if they participate in the program.

For whatever reason, the switchbacks work for me. Very comfortable pants. My only complaint is I hate hemming them, and since I'm bad at sewing, the stitching I do is bad, so I have to redo it often. Vicious circle.

In the past I might have been inclined to argue, but I've realized the truth a while ago. Now I just accept the system for what it is, and I try to make what impact I can. I think that's all we can really do.

Can confirm, my troop had a big bump in number of annual Eagle scouts. Went from perhaps one or two a year to maybe 4-5 a year starting in about 2011. I can only speculate as to why this change took place. The bulge was not temporary. We've gone on each year to have 4-5 Eagles a year. I think the trick is actually our retention has improved but I don't have the data crunched to prove anything. My focus is program, not crunching numbers. I can't really say why the number of Eagles is going up nationally. I'm inclined to point the finger at the BSA overemphasizing advancement but that may be to simple an explanation. For my Troop, I think creating a system of Eagle project coaches helped a lot. A few of the more timid Scouts who may in the past have looked at the process of earning Eagle to be too big and too confusing were able to navigate the process and earn their Eagle with the help of a Project Coach. As I like to tell my Scouts. "If you have the desire to earn Eagle, and the willingness to do the work, we have the resources and experience to help you accomplish that." Unlike Krampus's troop, our troop's leadership (including yours truly) is full of bleeding hearts, so we haven't put any caps on the number of Scouts in our troop. Our membership has gone from around 50-55 in 2009 to roughly 75 in 2015. We should see a bump in Eagles in the next few years, assuming our retention of those Scouts was at least as effective as it was in the past. Sentinel947

Uh oh. I don't like the implications of that..

@@Hedgehog and @@blw2 what matters most is trust. Full frontal assault or more subtle techniques matter, but not as much as whether you are trusted and respected. Does the SM and the CC trust that you understand what you are talking about? Are you a person that is in the fire with them, trying to make the Troop run? Or an outside observer who snipes but does no work? I know the two of you are, but those are general sense questions. Make ally's among adults, build a consensus. It's really hard. I don't trivialize that. If a newcomer proposes changes, they're a troublemaker. If a long time volunteer proposes changes, they're doing their job. ​Sentinel947

I agree.

I'm pretty sure it's a moot point for Stosh's Troop. He's got one patrol. Therefore a Patrol QM is a "troop QM". Otherwise, His Troop can only have one POR at a time, Patrol Leader.

That would be the norm. I can see scenarios where folks would do it : Scout develops proposal.Beneficiary, SM and TC Chair sign Scout develops plan.No signatures required (amazingly) Scout does project..Beneficiary, SM and TC Chair sign Scout develops final report. I'm not advocating for that approach, I imagine it happens enough that it's worth clarifying the steps.

If I understand him correctly, he's talking about the final four signatures that certify the project is completed. His Troop requires the workbook to be done and ready to go before they sign the final signatures, not necessarily the beginning the project ones.

I noticed the elastic in the pants for the first time a week or two ago. It was the first time I ever needed the pants to expand....Guess Its time to watch what I eat.

Yes.