Bob White

Beavah writes"By and large, my experience has been that if anybody wearin' olive and khaki says somethin' about "liability" they are probably makin' it up to sound more important." Beavah??? Don't YOU wear olive and khaki?

You are one angry fellow, and I hope that is working better for you than your posts suggest. Best of luck to you and the scouts you serve. BW

First I am not saying pass the buck. I am saying that if you are have a problem do more that just complain about. First, have good priorities and be able to tell big problems from little ones. Certainly as someone trained in rescue you must understand that. You need to know what issues are important and what ones are not. To make as big a deal out of such a minor issue is silly. Second, React appropriately and proportionately. Since the problem is not with the councils data entry but with the software at National, and considering the PD's open and honest letter explaining the situation, I don't think you can call Dluders behavior appropriate or proportional. Thirdly, Be helpful, with people who are trying to help you. remember that until fairly recently this responsibility was the individuals not the council's or national. They do not have to do this. this is being done as much as a service to us as a it is a benefit to the BSA. So let's work together on this. The bugs will get worked out. It is not as if it has not gotten better, or that it is the same problem every time. This is a very elaborate data base that draws from and feeds into other data bases, and sometimes the communication fizzles. Finally don't make things worse. Refusing to send a couple of dates so that they can try and fix the problem with your own record is immature. Dluders may not be a part of the problem but that doesnt mean he should irritate the problem further. If dluders really needs his once of blood from the office staff over this then he should go for it, and he should be very grateful that no one in return will ever come from the council office for their pound of flesh over the much larger problems in the unit he leads.

Excellent Post MR.T The only thing I would add is to consider having the new scouts each serve as a Patrol Leader for two months. That would give the Assistant Scoutmasters for the New Scout Patrols an opportunity to give each scout some basic patrol leader training so that at the end of a year they could elect a regular patrol leader having some knowledge of each persons performance in that role.

Depends on the topic Mister-T. When it comes to the: Methods, Aims, Mission, Policies, procedures, of the BSA....truth can be verified. There isn't much about the programs of Scouting that the BSA has not documented. You will find a lot of information here but you need to be very careful about measuring truth based on how convincing someone is. History is full of very convincing people who were not telling the truth. Verify verify verify. Remember also that this is still the Internet. People are not always what they say they are, even on a scout forum. For all you know the Scoutmaster of 15 years never had more than 5 scouts and ran the troop into the ground before he "retired". So be as cautious as you would tell your children to be if they were on the Internet. Good Luck and have fun in Scouting.

"It implies that you giving your word is the same as God giving His word - that you are, in your own eyes, God." That's ridiculous Beavah, its not even on par with your other attempts to twist logic. If you see giving your word, the same as your wife giving her word, does that then make you your wife? That is the same logic equation you used. What an absurd thing for you to say. This is more smoke and mirrors on your part. Your thread starts out with another false premise. Start with with a mixed statement about rules and program features, and then introcuce human rules without defining it, Then you switch again and caution us not to see program features as moral imperatives. Who did that? Who suggested that a "program feature" lets say a puppet show at a Pack meeting, was a moral imperative? Or are youredifioniong "program feature" for us as well?

You are definitely one angry guy, I doubt that works well for you. The PMs were sent to help you try and tone down the rhetoric by seeing that you have other concerns then the office needing a couple of training dates from you. The excuses you shared in your replies regarding the loss of the scouts do not reflect a healthy program. Again your credentials as an engineer ar nice but irrelevant to the issues of scouting. We are talking about a couple of training dates and you (and a couple other) are way over the top in your anger about it when you have more pressing problems in the troop you serve. In your PMS (which you said I could share but I think it best that I leave out some of the personal details) you explained the personal problems that Scoutmastership has created in your life. If being a Scoutmaster is causing those kinds of problems then you are obviously doing it incorrectly. There is nothing in being a Scouting volunteer that should cause that. And again if that is happening then you have far greater issues than a couple of training dates and it is conceivable that these issues are causing your anger to be misdirected at others, such as the office staff. You need to consider changing your priorities, and you might find you have far less to be angry about. Best of luck!

First, I would create two New Scout Patrols and not one. And since you really do not have a scout with sufficient scout skills to be a Troop Guide, I would have an Assisitant Scoutmaster for New Scout Patrols work with each NSP until the two of the currently Tenderfoot scouts earn 1st Class and can then be considered for a Troop Guide position. If I were your unit commissioner I would be very concerned. Commissioners rate unit health in three colors Green-healthy, Yeloow-cautionary, Red-Fatal. You would be a red/yellow. Without the influx of new Webelos you probably would have folded. Now you have a lot of new scouts and not enough skilled scouts to support the growth. For the next year you will need a lot of adult support and you have like what 3 or 4 other scouting positions? You also have three scouts who in over a year are still Tenderfoot which suggests a real program problem. I do not know what Brownsea22 is since it appears to be a local program, or what JLO is since the last time I saw that used was for a course called Junior Leader Orientation which was phased out 20 years ago. So I am unsure how those courses effect your situation. The telling sign will be a year from now when we see how many scouts have learned their skills through First Class, and how many are still in the troop. I think you have a very challenging year ahead that is going to require some very active assistant scoutmasters and a very well planned program.

The argment that as a national program you cannot follow the rules because all units cannot have an identical program is a silly argument at best. I cannot imagine that anyone at anytine thought that all units could have exactly the same program. There are BSA units all over the world, do you really think that anyone expects them to do exactly the same activity in exactly the same place, all at the same time? That would be the only way thaey caould have the identical program. But they can all follow the same methods in similar ways and toward identical goals regardless of where they are. And that is what we are actually talking about, everyone folowing the same standards and the same rules. And there is only one reason why that cannot be done. The only obstacles are volunteers who chosse not to follow the program for whatever clever excuse they can conjure up. Ethics is not a separate topic, it is totally related to "flexing" rules. What you are really endorsing is how to make excuses for doing what you want rather than want the program instructs. It is at its' core a matter of personal values and the ethics, which you either bring or don't bring with you as a leader.

A frequent tool used by Beavah is peppering the premise with false elements presumed as facts and then basing his conclusion on the faulty premise. Case in point* "There is no real issue in an over-21 adult who is in college tenting with an over the age of consent adult or minor who is also in college. However, this is allowed in Boy Scouting but not allowed in Venturing." The assumed fact a person over the age of consent is 18 or older when in fact in many states it could be a 17 year old. The other "false fact" that he implies is that the overthe age of consent person in college would have to be 21 and that is false. Can a person in Boy Scouts who is seventeen tent with a person who is 21 as Beavahs example claims? NO he cannot. False premise, false conclusion. Can a a person over the age of 21 in college tent with a person of the same sex who is 21 in venturing. Yes they can, again Beavahs clainm is false because the premise is false. "* Some degree of caution should be exercised in having an above-the-age-of-consent high schooler tenting with a middle school student. However, this is allowed in Boy Scouting. Age of consent is not a specific age and in fact varies between states and between sexes. High school and Middle school are not age defined. Also what authority on the matter says that "some concern should be excercised?" In many states a boy seventeen is above the age of consent and a 13 year old can be in the 8th grade. Does anyone here see a problem on a campout with a 17 year old and an 13 year old in a tent? "* A considerable degree of caution should be exercised in having a college student tenting with a below-the-age-of-consent high school student. However, this is allowed in Venturing." What exactly does college have to do with this. If a person is not in college but the same age is he more or less prone to the improper behaviour that Beavah hints at? I was a college student at the age of 17. Beavah says that you should excercise caution if a 17 year old tents with a 16 year. REALLY? I never knew that. He says that is allowed in Venturing...oh the horrors! Was he not aware that it is also allowed in Boy Scouts? "* An above-the-age-of-consent college student should not be dating a below-the-age-of-consent minor. However, this is allowed in Venturing. Dating is "allowed" in Venturing? Beavah will have to show us where eaxactly that is in the Venturing program. Who says a college student should not date a below the age of consent minor? The law says they should not have sex, it doesn't say they shouldn't date. Beavah evidently assumes that dating means sex, again a difference of personal ethics. As shown before a 17 year old can be in college, and in many states they are above the age of consent. So a 17 year old cannot date a 16 year old? Where is Beavah getting these rules from? and as a final example... "* There is no real problem with an over-21 college student dating an under-21 college student. However, this is not allowed in Venturing." REALLY? So Beavah does not think that a 17 year old should date a 16 year old, but he has no problem with a 22 year old dating a 17 year old. Back to a matter of personal ethics I guess. He used very misleading phrases to lead to very false conclusions. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Dluders, People who live in glass houses.... I think if the purpose of the open house is to air your grievances then you by all means should do just that. I urge you to share it with the same language and the same intensity that you have shared it here on the Internet. If your goal is to see "incompetent" office staff exposed for the slipshod job you claim they do, then go for it. But let's be honest dluders, how has the troop you have lead faired these last 4 years? Would you say "competently"? Would you say that the same problems have been going on for years in the troop but with no solution? If the troop were a business what percentage of your customer base have you lost? Would a "solvent" business experiencing that same loss be able to survive? These are in fact the same devices by which you measured the competency or the council office staff, so how does the job you have done measure up under the same conditions. But I bet not a single council office person would ever call you or any of your other leaders incompetent. Or post such a thing on the Internet, and certainly they will not attack you publicly. In fact I bet the worst they would do is continue to give you the same service they provide for all the other units. Why do you suppose that your attitude is so much diferent over a couple of training dates, then their response is over the loss of so many scouts? More importantly how has your anger helped your troop to grow? Why do I not this training record issue as a big problem? Because I think it is a difference of priorities.

"I'm curious how folks who believe that reconcile their position with the DRP, which holds a primary duty to a Higher Power to be the best form of citizenship." If I understand the statement from you Beavah you are claiming that to say as a member of the BSA you will follow the rules and then keep your word, and promising to do your duty to God and keep your word, are mutually exclusive promises? Where as I find keeping your word to be a single ethical choice whether it is about my Duty to God or my Duty to others.

One SE I knew retired we knew he enjoyed fishing. We had a custom rod made for him with his name on it and we all signed the rod case. He seemed very touched. I guess my suggesting is give them something personal and nonscouting that they will use and appreciate.

Nowhere in the Guide to Safe Scouting does it say "that youth below the age of 18 must have separate accomodations than those over 18.". What the G2SS says is that "When staying in tents, no youth will stay in the tent of an adult other than his or her parent or guardian." The definition of Youth is left to the membership requirements of each program. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

You're kidding right? You really still think, after all the posts explaining that the local office has nothing to do with this computer program other than data entry, that the local office is somehow responsible for this? How can you not grasp this simple concept? I do mot rant...I marvel...I marvel at the ability of some scouters to not read, or who refuse to accept what policies, or programs are, then I wait for the ranters to orbit my pots like moons around Saturn. Forgive me for continuing to interject facts into this whine-fest. In the past national had a very limited data system. It was used primarily for creating and storing Charter information including unit membership. As part of this national kept only three conditions of training on a person. The records showed you were untrained, FastStart or Basic Trained. That was it. And if you changed programs but were not trained the BSA did not know unless you altered the charter at re-charter time. Councils at this time were not responsible directly for keeping training records as they are for advancement records. At v=best a council would have a slew of three ring notebooks that had carbons of the training course record sheet. Often the District had a set as well. But if room was scarce these folders were usually trashed. Some councils may have transferred these records to microfiche as they did with advancement records but I doubt it. The reason being it was the individuals responsibility to keep their own records. When PCs came out each council (that actually had a computer) had there own systems, that depended largely on the computer knowledge of the person who had the computer. Eventually National BSA created a network between the councils and national called ScoutNet. It did not work real well at first but then a lot of networks did not work well at first. As ScoutNet has grown so has the number of things they use it for. One service they are trying to develop is training record keeping for 1.2 million adult a volunteers as year. This nationally based database has had some problem, not all of them the same. For instance in the council where I live my personal training report is accurate but the unit charter says II am not trained. Both are generated by national but for some reason the data is not being shared properly. In the past we have had leaders appear on a unit report and a month later they are gone for no apparent reason. I am sure that the folks working on the program would love to know why this is happening so that they can stop it and do other things. But it certainly has nothing to do with the local scout office. But to be quite frank it is not a problem that affects my life in any way. Whether or not my training appears on the report or not is not be any means a big issue. It jas no effect on my next meeting, my next outing, the health of the unit, the fun for the scouts..none are effected by this computer problem. It is certainly nothing to cause the name calling and the gnashing of teeth apparent in this thread. I have a training history typed up and if someone at the office needs it I can e-mail it to them. No big deal, and no name calling and no refusing to help out. If this kind of thing bothers you this much, then how can you possibly be expected to be able to handle real problems?

Please highcountry, have you nothing to offer this discussion other than just another tantrum. The office is trying to deal with a system that is not theirs. It is not their responsible to maintain training records. If it is anyone's responsibility it is the individual adult's. National is trying to make it easier for everyone and be able to verify training activity with a national data base but the program still has some bugs evidently. Heck you have posters here how have shut down units and chased countless youth out of scouting, yet few if any of you even raise an eybrow to such behavior. But let a computer program crash and you start yelling at a few folks who only input data as being incompetent. Dluders is an angry guy. things have not gone well in the unit he serves and he is taking his frustrations out on the wrong people and some of you are following behind him just for the sport of it. Make a ppersonal training history for yourselves and if sometimes someone is interested in it you can just email it. How tough is that?

Here's another way to consider that worked for me for many years. The patrols were each responsible for their patrol. That meant planning, shopping, cooking, drawing patrol equipment, and arranging transportation. Each patrol knew where we were going and when, and it was up to the patrol to get there. We only had a patrol left behind one time. There was no screaming parents, there were no angry scouts. Everyone knew that the patrol was responsible and they dropped the ball. So instead they made arrangements and made it to camp early the next morning. Once was enough to convince everyone that it really was their responsibility.

We had the Patrol Scribes fill out the patrol rosters and give them to the Troop Scribe. He assembled them onto the troop roster and gave the master list to the SPL.

Doing things by Patrol is micro managing??? Since when?

Did it occur to you Shortridge that they are doing that as a service to you? They could just as easily enter the data and assume that everything works at the other end. Instead they continue on your behalf to double check the data until the techs at national get it working properly. Seems to me that a thank you to them is in order for their diligence in doing their part on your behalf. Instead you call them names. You don't seem to comprehend that this is not a problem that the local council controls. Their only responsibility in this task is data entry. The database and the software controlling it are not at the Council Service Center. It is not even designed or operated by the council. You are continuing to blame them for something that is not their responsibility. We pay them to input the data. PERIOD! "flip it around and think about this situation from another perspective. If I, as a unit leader, kept screwing up my Scouts' advancement information, causing problems for both my unit and folks at Council who had to deal with the aftermath,..." Read the posts on this forum Shortridge. You're saying you don't see any signs of incompetent scout leaders on this forum???? But you don't see any posts from council office staffers posting that the leaders are incompetent do you? All the name calling seems to be coming from a few posters. Scout leaders who do not know how to deal with their frustrations or challenges in a more positive and effective manner than name calling. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

No one has posted otherwise.

Tammi Hear abouts we use the leather wood badge name badge holder that attaches to the right shirt button. Many of us glue our WB patrol medallion to the backside of that patch. (most are attched upside down so that you can flip the badge holder up and the medallion appears right-side-up. But the previous posters are correct there is no appropriate place to display a patrol patch on an adult uniform. Congratualions, you are in a fine and noble patrol who many others appear jealous of, and so they tend to overcompensate by maligning this swift and elusive creatured.

Not conflicting, one is just more detailed than another. If I were looking for an answer about Boy Scouting I would look in the Boy Scout Handbook and the Scoutmaster Handbook. Sometimes one gives more detail on the topic than the another. For Venturing, look in the Venturing Handbook and the Venturing Leader Manual. In this case one gives more detail than the other on this topic. Remember what Hooty Owl says! Elyria You are not alone in this frustration. You will learn that being a trained leader merely means they attended training, It does not allways mean that they paid attention during training. Or before or after training for that matter. Take comfort in the fact that you have a good understanding of the membership rule. You did your best in showingthem the correct reference to prove what the rule is. After thant you can onley choses whether it is an issue that is worth risking being made to leave the event, or if you should juct rearange the sleeping arrangements to give the 18 to 20 year olds their own space. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Of course it is up to the local counil to check the output, it is the local coucil that has the raw data that was input to the database, It only makes sense that they would do the checks to see if the date was catured or not. It is not the councils responsibility to keep training records. Until recently that was a district responsibility. It was only as the Scoutnet system was established and the adult training tracking program was added that it became the councils job to enter the data. I was a District Training chair at the time the new national software became available. I had kept all the training rcords for the district on an Excel spread sheet, Once the national program started we thought it would be a simple matter to import the data into the national data base, but it turned out that they were not compatable and everything still needed too be hand entered. It was a frustration, but it was handled maturely without the need to call anyone incompetent, or threats of refusing to cooperate. Create a personal training history and keep your own records updated. If someone needs them just send an e-mail and quit the temper tantrums.

Shortridge, Yes it is possible although it probably rarely happens. Unless he or she needed that last month to complete a rank or award they would likey choose to end their youth career at the end of the current charter rather than go one month into the new one, or remain a youth for another 11-months. (such is the nature of growing-up)