TAHAWK

If it's "geezer," I doubtless qualify. And I have been both "them," "they," "we," and "us" simultaneously for several decades. As most of us know, many advancement "rules" are quite vague: "Discuss"; "Describe"; "Explain." Still, if you don't even try to follow the rules, . . . . . Uniforms, as noted several times here, are optional under the rules of Scouting, That seems fairly black and white. Not that I do favor and encourage uniforming. Which is why I urge B.S.A. to adopt a uniform instead of merely clothing purchased from B.S.A.

No. Just a good reason to find another troop rather than expect a boy to take on intrenched, mistaken adults. He could look in the Handbook on page 33.

So, Barry, does it comport with the G2A to repeatedly retest a Scout in a "Scoutmaster Conference" and "fail" the Scout for the reasons stated by the OP?

You seem to be describing a troop where the Scouters are united in ignorance or deliberate non-compliance with the rules. That being the case, I join the suggestion that you look for another troop. Unfortunately, many troops are not Boy Scout troops, and this is knowingly tolerated by B.S.A. If you wish to do so, you might write your council and District Commissioner to calmly explain why your son left Troop 666 - a pattern of failure to comply with the Guide to Advancement. The notion that a boy will have a good, much less successful, experience taking on a group of adults about their behavior is unrealistic. Even if the boy deals well with such an experience,, the chances that he will make any impression on a group of Scouters united in misconduct is extremely unlikely - at best.

Not if other Scouts were available to do it, but otherwise, why not. Are ambassadors soemhow outside the pale?

On one of the committees, were you?

Discipline is a shared responsibility of leadership and Scouters. If you have not noticed, the video for YPT was corrected to reflect this arrangement. (The YPT video was previously in conflict with all other B.S.A. publications on the topic. Isolated "Bubbles" again - like indoor "lock-ins" to play video games being counted as a "campout" for J2E.). Scout Spirit has always been part of the requirements for advancment in the UK and the B.S.A. So if it is "BS," it is traditional BS and current BS - Boy Scouting from BP to Hillcourt to B.S.A. 2014 See: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx#8020 One problem with having the PLC (formerly AKA "Court of Honor" - and think on that) sit as a quasi-court is that youth can be awfully-bloody minded about discipline - tougher than most adults. That's where the Scouter comes in to meeet this shared responsibility. Moreover, the PLC is not a BOR - presently.

Dumas a post. ?? Typical ambulance chasers. Skumoftheearth.

We had a BoR tell a Scout, Patrick, to come back in two months because he had gotten into a fist fight with his brother at a meeting. All accounts were that he was the aggressor and stuck the first blow. Blood and everything. His older, larger, brother had primarily tried to fend off the blows, with incomplete success. The BoR, felt he had not displayed "Scout Spirirt" (living by the Oath and Law), needed time to think about that, and needed to come back with a plan of how to avoid getting physical in the future. Determining if a Scout understands and is is showing Scout Spirtt was, and is, part of their duty as a BoR. If that duty has changed, I am not aware of it and BSA has not rewritten the on-line guide to Boards of review to reflect any such change. The dad, a lawyer, "demanded" and "appeal hearing," which was held. It was obvious that the son had been, shall we say, unclear about the Board ruling and the reasons for that ruling. After dad was told, he said, in effect, "never mind." The Scout came back to the next BoR. He admitted he was letting his temper damage his relationship with his brother. He had a plan to resolve disagreements. He passed. Later, Pat was was elected SPL and is a Eagle Scout. He organized thousands of university students to support first responders in the aftermath of 9/11. He has two Phd's and is a successful teacher, researcher, husband and father - very close to his brother.

Raccoons all over this hemisphere are recoiling in horror !!

In this Huff and Puff is typical of today's media - left and right: Get past the bloodthirsty headline and the operative word in the arrticle is "might," as in Perry might be convicted. Many things might come to pass.

Would mailing a week from tomorrow be fast enough? They changed over time. Pre-1960, they were

In an adult-run unit, more adults means more adult control. But not all units are adult-run. Some are Boy Scout Troops. It is possible, as I have experienced as a Scout and an adult, for adults to stick to the adult role and let the leaders lead. Is some care required? Sure. As with other things.

That is a question of Texas law. I don't know anything relevant about Texas law. Any citations of Texas statutory or case law to bring to our attention ?

Oh yes! Books of dreams. It's a long wait after you order your Randall knife due to demand. As a result, existing knives sell on the secondary market for a significant premium over retail. Almost as good were the old Army Navy stores, perfumed by the odor of U.S.G.I anti-mildew treatment on everything canvas. One troop in our distirct used old Japanese bayonets, purchased at $.10 each from the Santa Ana Army Navy, as tent pegs. (I wish I had bought a garbage can or two of them, but we all "knew" Japanese steel was junk.)

Stosh, While I admit that its not without some wiggle room (which I find just fine), there is an official BSA job description for an ASPL: So we have some notion what his duties are, at least according to the B.S.A.

Helicopter or "dingle fan" chicken. http://boyslife.org/outdoors/1264/goofy-grub/ (A salvaged fan blade placed in line with the chicken on a freely-rotating pivot is driven by the rising heat and causes the chicken on the lower section of chain to rotate = "helicopter"[AFTER TRANSMISSION FAILURE]) Eggs in onion. Roast stuffed pumpkin. Pit roast. (The same carried to a wonderful extreme ) Chemical charcoal starters are, indeed, "prohibited" by G2SS. Liquid charcoal starter or kerosene are "chemical."

Stosh, I would agree that the distinction is clear if I agreed there was a clear distinction. I do not. There are still very directive, very power-over managers. In that, they are way behind even the military. What I got from Blancard almost twenty years ago is that accounts are managed and people are led, and they are led most effectively when an inner-group consensus is reached about what the goals should be and how they should be reached. Leaders, he said, first of all, are liked by their subordinates because they feel the leader treats them with respect, gives them what they neeed to succeed, and - off his record -- will lead them to success. In turn, they support the leader because, in making the group look good, he makes them look good. I tyhink this mutual support is impossible to reliably detect unless reflected by behavior. So neither leading or following has to do with who one is in some cosmic sense but has to do with what is done. Look at your words. You describe outcomes, such a food delivered. The results may result FROM attitudes but they are only reflected in behavior. Accordingly, I say that who you are is irrelevant if it does not result in somethings happening in practice. I say people follow leaders to some end(s), and there are many such possible ends within the range of Scouting, where the youth are supposed to define the ends. But define they do whenever they "plan." Consider what a "program" looks like with no ends, not even exercise to get fit. Would just milling around be OK simply because the followers follow the "leader" in milling around? In an emergency, do we merely STO? Is a good leader one who leads the led to do nothing? Or leads them to do bad things? (I had an SPL who was very charismatic and used his influence to try to get as many Scouts as possible smoking weed.) Why do we want to develop leaders? So they are merely followed or becasue they will lead the led to some behavior beyond merely following? I also abolutely believe people can be taught to be better leaders. B.S.A. has been trying to do that, one way or another and for better or worse, as long as I have been in Scouting. So has every branch of the military and, more recently, so has business. I think I have seen success. My Scoutmaster also liked to observe that caring for others was learned behavior and that the best leaders were characterized by how they took care of their group - by doing something(s). Tell me more - please.

When I was a new leader, my Scoutmaster said that my job was summed up by, "Keep the patrol together and get the job done." He also quoted Eisenhower to the effect that "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." Ledership training was designed to help me learn how to accomplish these goals. Jump foprward deczdes. My company sent me, and others, to a Blanchard & Assocs. "Situational Leadership" course in 1995. Blanchard explained that the employees "you most want to keep" are both the least tolerant of "directive" leadership and the most able to escape it by leaving for another employer. So, as a "leader" your goal was to cause them to have ownership of the job. Essentially, you needed to be open to their input about how the job should best be done - even if the job should be done at all. Your people, he taught, are not just your most important asset, they are the only asset that makes an enduring difference in the marketplace. Your win or lose according to how well it's their job, not just the company's. So, if anything, he stressed the importance of the people being led even more than had been the case in Scouting in the 1950's and 1960's. Blanchard and Assocs., of course, wrote the original 21st Century Wood badge syllabus - since revised heavily by unidentified others. So my understanding as a JLT, NYLT and Wood Badge staffer was that the job was not the ruling factor in leadership. If fact, that the Scouts and Scouters have even less motivation to put up with leaders they do not want to follow. How clearly the current BSA syllibii, as rewritten, accurately reflects the orgiinal Blanchard lessons is another topic. Quality of staff, including experience, makes a difference. Rather than focusing on "leadership" vs "managment," it might be more helpful to discuss desired practices and outcomes. Then we do not have to deal with different understandings of what labels mean.

fred, what you relate sounds pretty bad. The label "merit badge mill," which I have used, is used publically by dozens of councils and also by B.S.A. What is insulting to B.S.A. and to those councils and their many thousands of Scouts and Scouters is the behavior of deliberately handing out unearned merit badges. It is a problem that B.S.A. is trying to figure out how to eliminate. B.S.A. wishes to insure that merit badges are going to persons who are not merely "good" or "young" but are also qualified as BSA defines being qualified. Pretending mills do not exist will not result in change. Again, what lesson it taught by allowing unearned awards to be given out as a deliberate policy? What value is served? How are we preparing youth for life by handing them unearned awards? As for "paper Eagle" or other things that others say - here or elsewhere, I leave defense of that label and those behaviors to those that utilize them. That I expressly distinguish between one camp and another by noting camps that have a policy of not being a mill belies a claim that I am stereotyping council camps. I have not thought it useful to identify the camps that are mills, such as the one that my troop attended this year. Your relation of the travails of the Scout regarding his project is sad. Maybe a thread discussing how councils, through their districts, should administer the G2A would be useful. I have no brief for anyone who adds to or revises requirements - or who subtracts from them or ignores them as merit badge mills systematically do. I cannot, of course, control the connotation you read into my words. Your experience and who your are controls that phenomenon. The personal offense that you express and the notion that "merit badge mill" somehow reflects specifically on "my scouts" is beyond my control. My belief that I did no such thing is neither here nor there. I have no idea what you mean by "I'm glad to let BSA requirements be the bad guy while I support and help the scout." I do not want to speculate. We are all sworn to apply "BSA requirements." Again, I regret your personal anguish.

Well, fred, it was one-sided, as it was directed to you. Unlike some, I have not found that name-calling advances discourse, including on those occasions when I have done it. In this case, the only camps I have identifed are those on the side of the angels - refusing to be advancement mills. The only specific unit I have referenced as an advancement mill is the one with which I currently work as SA. And calling someone who obviously has some mileage on them "old" is a very spiffy putdown as it is undeniable. Not a goat however. An Owl or Honorary Beaver, Eagle, or Bear. I take it you feel personally disparaged by someone's - anyone's - comments about "paper eagles," a term I have never used; "Eagle Mills," a term I think I have used about my own troop; or "boy led troop" (a description I never use about my troop - but hope to some day). It's easy for me to say, but surely that feeling, if ever justified, should not be a reaction to posts on a forum by total strangers. No matter what is said, say "Bitter Old Goat" for example, the sun will rise tomorrow. In the marketplace of ideas, labels have little weight except with those whose opinion should be a matter of indifference to you. Not a tit or jot of your good work in Scouting is subtracted by a direct or inferred unfair criticism of you or your unit on this forum, not that I believe I have done that. I know nothing about your troop. If "others" - say your unit - are meeting the "exact same" requirements, any complaint is unjustified - a cheap shot. That unjustified complaints are made is just the way it goes. I hope that does not preclude respectful suggestions of alternatives within the range of Scouting. I had the impression that the criticisms in this thread. express or implied, were based on a perception that requirements were not being met. As to the existence of summer camp merit badge mills, that is the perception of the National Advancement Team of the B.S.A., the Program Director at the camp that I referenced ( but did not identify), each of the eight "counselors" that I interviewed at that camp (only two of which were, in fact, Merit Badge Counselors.), and every Scout that I interviewed. In short, it's hardly a secret that the rules are being ignored is a systematic way by some councils. As to declining use of the Patrol Method, that such is the case is the impression of what was called the National Training Team (Now something like "Learning Delivery" team) and every single one of the dozens of district and council commissioners with whom I have communicated on the topic. Older, rather than younger, Scouters tend to notice the decline of Boy Scouting, as opposed to this other thing, not becuase it was once perfect but because decline has occurred over time. It's worse thann is used to be. Recognizing the problem, B.S.A is working to solve it by changing training materials. That leaves the theme of meaningless tenure in PORs, the rule in "my troop" as the SM is also SPL and all the PL's. (And yes, we have had civilized discussions, and we now at least have patrols, patrol meetings, PLC meetings, boy input into planning. Baby steps.) All I can judge is that some Scouters believe POR's are about advancement, not exercising responsibility. I reach this conclusion because a majority of SM's at roundtables in five different districts in three different councils agreed by show of hands that POR's were all about advancement. B.S.A., my councils, and my districts, have a lot of grund to make up to correct the misunderstanding of POR's. If anyone is being negative about a unit that meets all the rules, then I violently agree with you comments - just not the "old" part. Error is not confined to the experienced. In the alternative, I suspect that Bitter Old Foxes are at least as bad as BOG"S. If I read you as opining that one should "mind your business":by way of ignoring what goes on outisde a single unit, it is my business. Some of us wear other than unit "hats" in Scouting. SA is just one of mine. To the extent that I "want more," from B.S.A., I do communicate with B.S.A. - now that the new Chief promotes communication between paid and volunteer Scouters. Mostly, I try to help them see ways to have B.S.A. Scouting actually do what we say we do. We should at least be trustworthy. We, none of us, are the absolute font of received Scouting wisdom. I did not intend to offend you.

Troop option:

Spiffy put-down, but please eschew name-calling and tell us all why you view what the OP described above as "achievement." Maintaining average basal metabolism while in a POR? I think charmoc's position starts with a false dichotomy (either/or) and does not explain why there has been "achievement" much less why the only choices are to look bad (As if appearance is the be all.) or to hail what seems to be a lack of achievement. Are there not other choices?

I hold a different view. "achievement" ? What achievement? And why do we do what we do? To sponsor phony "achievement" as with the PC "Great job!" to encourage mediocrity? THAT will get them Ready for Life? Imagine this Scout's amazement when he finds out the world is not like Mom and Dad. He will find that university professors and bosses expect actual achievement and care little about "building self esteem." Try this af ew years down the road "Gee John, you did the absolute minimum at your job. I think that deserves recognition. You're fired." Alternatives have been suggested. We can help get him ready for the real world. We can encourage the Scout to actually strive and achieve. We can at least try - do our best. To do anything else causes you to be a spectator at a slow-motion life wreck.