Scouter99

Then that will be a fun Bryan blog to troll.

This troop is mostly "aliens" to the church, so I doubt they've got youth buy in. My own troop hasn't had a boy from the CO church since the 1990s.

None so far, a couple visitors, but holding off to find a new CO for the whole troop if possible.

Welp, a church down the road is killing its charter and forming a TL group. Guess how many of the boys are interested . . . if you said "0" claim your prize.

The LDS units' information is always absent from the contact info when I send a list of packs to the DE so I can send open house info. The first time I figured it was an oversight, the second time I knew better, ever since it's just been an inside joke with me, myself, and I to request it every year knowing it won't come.

I was livid this summer when I realized mid-campfire that the Communications MB counselor was signing 15 boys off for being an MC by having each one introduce just 1 skit.

A cornerstone of the MB program is the personal growth involved with the scout (not mama or his Scoutmaster) A. picking up the phone, speaking with a stranger, setting up an appointment, and making the appointment on time and B. picking merit badges which he is personally interested in. Troop meetings as Merit Badge School gut this personal growth cornerstone of the MB program by removing choice and accountability. They also make for boring troop meetings; if, as a 10-yr-old, I had visited a troop and we sat around doing Citizenship in the X that night, I wouldn't have been back. Like jblake's troop, my troop has several adults registered as MB counselors, and from time-to-time one says "hey, Johnny Scout has asked me to councel him in XX badge and he's going to need a buddy, if anyone else is interested we'll be meeting 30 minutes before the troop meeting over the next several weeks." But these sessions aren't part of the troop program and they don't interfere. Some of the parents/ASMs in our troop who are also registered as MB counselors don't even answer e-mails or voicemails about working on a MB if it's mom or dad who made the contact.

Active, present, having fun, volunteering. He might be a last minute Eagle, but I don't see an issue with how he's getting there.

I don't know where this idea that a scout needs a beard before he's "ready" for Eagle came from, BSA released this poster on Eagle Scouts a few years ago: http://www.coolinfographics.com/blog...fographic.html "Average age of Eagle Scouts in 1949" take a guess, go on . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 years old. Most every Eagle in our troop meets the new average (17), but to be honest I don't care for it. (In general) They get up to Star or Life by 14/15, disappear for several years then barnstorm the troop asking for help on their Eagle project from kids who've never even seen them, and squeeze Eagle in just in time to age out and be useless to the troop as an Eagle to begin with. If there's no dispute that the boy has met the requirements, I'll take a 13-yr-old Eagle who still has a couple good years left over a 17-yr-old fly-by-night any day of the week.

The glaring issue is definitions. What is "bullying"? It has become the norm in our society lately to label anything bullying, but bullying is a specific behavior with a specific definition, first and foremost it requires repetition, but most people apply the term to one-off instances. What is an "inappropriate size knife"? Contrary to popular belief, BSA sets no limit to the length of knife a scout may carry, so the committee must make its own definition. As noted by others above, the biggest problem with these is that they are most often overly complicated, seeking to address every little thing that might ever happen when they cannot anyway, and no one ever reads them and they are rarely applied as written. They're useless in that way.

If they once knew, whatever, a bowline, and were signed off, but have since forgotten and now can't, so you want an extra identification system--paracord, beads, whatever--your line of reasoning doesn't stand: What keeps the same boy who earned First Class and forgot the bowline from earning your "ranger bead" for bowline, and then forgetting the bowline the same as any other First Class scout? There. is. no. reason. whatsoever. to. implement. a. parallel. recognition. system. If you have trouble with skill retention in your troop, you need to create opportunities for them to utilize the skills thereby keeping them fresh in the mind, not a parallel program. In point of fact, if the point is to use boys to teach other boys, the simple act of teaching will remedy the situation on its own.

Had an adult sit a plate full of rare chicken on the table last year; I would've appreciated the objectiveness of a thermometer. Ate a lot of bread that night.

Yes or no depending on the counselor. Some will accept previously done work, some won't.

There's no need. As pointed out, there are "standards" for everything regarding the uniform. If your unit isn't enforcing them, adding more to the heap isn't going to change that. Rank badges denote everything a scout knows; if you can't tell which knots a boy knows based on his rank, then you don't need a new more complicated system, you need to memorize the existing one. If the boys' ranks aren't indicative of their knowledge, then you need to stop rubber-stamp advancing them, not create a new system of bling. As for hats, troop PLCs (not you) can pick their own hats and their own neckerchiefs. Troop PLCs can also decide which parts of the uniform to wear or not. That's all the customization you need.

Maybe the adults will do his project for him, too.

What is a board of review? From the Troop Committee Guidebook: When a Scout has completed all the requirements for a rank, he appears before a board of review composed of at least three and not more than six committee members. The review has three purposes: I. To make sure that the work has been learned and completed. 2. To find out what kind of experience the Scout is having in his patrol and troop. 3. To encourage the Scout to progress further. The board of review is not a time to retest the Scout, but to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting ideals. It is also important to review those Scouts who are not advancing. The guidance and care shown could motivate these Scouts to further achievement. The review should be conducted at a convenient time and location, such as a troop meeting, summer camp. or the home of a member of the troop committee. Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters do not participate in the board of review. . . . Because many boys are ill at ease when talking to adults, it is important that the board of review be held in a relaxed atmosphere. A certain amount of formality and meaningful questioning should be used during the review. Use questions that require a narrative answer. Examples of the kinds of questions that might be asked are: • What do you like most in troop outdoor activities? • What new things did you do/learn on your latest campout/service project/troop meeting? • What did you learn/feel in giving service to others? • Why is being a Boy Scout important to you? • What are your goals in Scouting? • How will fulfilling requirement number help you? These types of questions will help the Scout to see the value and practical application of his efforts. At the conclusion of the review, the board should know whether a Scout is qualified for the rank or Palm. The Scout is asked to leave the room while the board members discuss his achievements. The decision of the board of review is arrived at through discussion and must be unanimous. If members are satisfied that the Scout is ready to advance, he is called in, congratulated, notified as to when he will receive his recognition, and encouraged to continue his advancement or earn the next Palm. (emphasis mine) A board of review by definition involves the scout; it is not possible to conduct a board of review in absentia. The boy did not appear, he was not questioned, his attitudes and character were not ascertained, his experiences in the troop were not discovered. It's not nice that the committee rubber-stamped him, it's a sham. Your committee can review what a board of review is and how to conduct one in the Guide to Advancement for free at www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf‎

There actually are not strict rules for using names/images of scouts in social media. There are recommendations not to use first and last name, and that's about it. (Unless something changed since I inquired with National last year).

The phrasing was corrected to "dues-paying" on scoutwire back in April, I guess whoever c/p'ed it to scouting.org didn't get the memo.

How can it be the "second stage" when it was announced 5 months ago? The amount of tinfoil used for hats around here is sometimes baffling. It seems like a simple logical move: Why would we register people who are not operating in an official capacity to begin with?

The only release of files has been via legal action. There was a release of files from 1970-something through 1980-something in a Virginia lawsuit (which the boy lost) called the "Infant C" case; Brett Corbitt was suing BSA, National Capitol Area Council, and his actual abuser Carl Bittenbender. More files were released due to another lawsuit which BSA settled before they could be introduce as evidence, but the lawyer sent them to the book's author. A 2010 Oregon lawsuit saw more files released. The original Infant C. files were used for a Washington Times series which led to a book, which then led to the program you saw... The program you saw part of was an episode of the short-lived ABC news magazine Day One (styled "Day1One") inspired by the book "Scout's Honor.". I haven't had any luck finding the episode online, but I just finished the book and it's basically a hit piece. It is written in a style that takes the case of Carl Bittenbender, who had affairs with several boys across 3 states in the 1980s, applying it to the BSA as a whole, which fatally flaws it since Bittenbender's case is a-typical, but that's the point of a hit piece. The book's main arguments are that BSA should have been more proactive in protecting youth by investigating adults' backgrounds better and filing charges against abusers when they were found out, that BSA should have shared its files with other organizations, that BSA should have done analyses of its files to facilitate predicting who might be an abuser and to inform its protection policies, and that BSA was late to the game in youth protection as compared to Big Brothers/Big Sisters. So, point by point: *Background checks as we know them were not available in most parts of the country until the mid-90s. The book was written before then just as computerized BG checks were coming around, so it argues that troops and councils should have done better jobs of calling references (as if an abuser was going to list references that would reveal themselves) and that BSA should have been using what few cumbersome analogue BG check systems were available (which ignores the fact that those systems were not interagency or interstate). *BSA should have filed charges whenever it could have; however, once again this is an ahistorical argument. Most child abuse goes unreported, and even when discovered, most abuse before the 1980s was not prosecuted for a variety of reasons ranging from no laws covering it, to lack of desire/cooperation from victims, to police disinterest, to institutional coverups. The argument that BSA should have been doing something that no one else, including law enforcement, was doing prior to the 80s sounds great, but that's it. *Big Brothers asked BSA to share its files, and that sounds like a great idea. But the files contain only accusations in many cases, and sharing them would be libelous. The "perversion" class of files also contains the names of men who were simply gay--they're an internal control system that contain names of people that other agencies might accept with open arms. Think about it this way, DWise, you are in all likelihood in the Ineligible Volunteer files under "morals" because you're an atheist, you're in there with gamblers, burglars, people who cuss too much, divorcees, etc. Now say BSA sends your name to Big Brothers as a person who is morally unfit to lead young people, is that acceptable? Some of the people in the files are simply gay, or did things like "birthday spankings." Does giving a scout birthday spankings make a person a pervert? No, it maybe makes him absentminded in context. But that guy is in the "perversion" files--no abuse, no crime, no victims, no sex. *The charge that BSA should have been studying its files is valid, but the idea that doing so could have let BSA profile/predict abusers is false. The author is a reporter, not a criminologist, psychologist, etc. and he should stick to what he knows. Analysis of the files last year told us what the experts already know: There is no profile of a pedophile. The secondary argument that the files would have allowed BSA to see weakness in its program that helped abusers is shaky, again, prior to the 1980s no one thought of child sex abuse as a largescale societal problem, again the author is arguing from hindsight. *The charge that BSA was late to the game would be laughable if we weren't talking about such a grim subject. The book compares BSA to Big Brothers; in 1983 Big Brothers began compiling its first national database of abusers, and reached out to BSA for info-sharing. Big Brothers was founded in 1904, it took them 79 years to address the issue of abuse on the national level. BSA was founded it 1910, they began a national system in 1920. Big Brothers is no comparison to BSA. 2012 analysis of the files shows that BSA's rate of abuse is comparable to Big Brothers, (.0007 and .0005) so we see further that there is no real comparison, BSA was doing just as good as Big Brothers, and was doing it longer. The author weaves a personal tale of being the only reporter to take a serious, longterm look at this issue, and spends time on his confusion and frustration that the national media did not pick up his series. He also hammers BSA for claims that the problem was less in BSA than society at large without stats. Ironically, he is telling us exactly what the real problem was: Letting abusers off the hook was a social, nationwide problem, not a BSA problem. And now that analysis of the files has been done, we know that BSA is correct: instances of abuse are 70x lower in BSA than in society. Focusing in on the extraordinary case of Carl Bittenbender tells us a tragic story, but it doesn't tell us anything about BSA, it just tells us about Carl Bittenbender and the mistakes that were made in his case only. Rhode Island convicted him of abuse, then let him move to Pennsylvania then Virginia without contacting the parole system in either state--The author's argument that his background should have been investigated is moot, VA and PA wouldn't have known because RI never told them--that's not the BSA's fault.

For what it's worth, anyway, I just noticed that Troop Webhost's membership report has a "Multiple?" column. I've never heard of multiple registration, though. I don't see the point--you can go camping with a pal's troop without making it complicated.

There is nothing in or about the article to suggest the boy was autistic.

People of your opinion crack me up: So, you think that BSA hides jillions of pedophiles and yet you bring your son and your friends' sons into the program? So are you an idiot, or are you a cold-hearted psychopath who doesn't care, or are you a pedophile yourself? What you are is an uninformed alarmist. The occurrence of abuse in BSA is up to 70 times lower than in society in general. You can educate yourself starting here: http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-...olunteer-files There are absolutely individuals within Scouting--parents, volunteers, and professionals--who have mishandled certain cases, and even some who have intentionally covered them up. But the BSA as a whole has a system, it is the best out there, and the numbers show it.

I don't understand why people are having so much trouble understanding Bryan's analogy/comparison. It's just that, a comparison. It's simple. National does not and cannot control what individual troops charge for dues, or how much their monthly program costs, and National cannot know whether additional costs are covered by fundraising or by dues etc. So all Bryan can do is compare National's fee to other organizations' fees, and that's what he did. Charging unit dues separately from registration fees is not a council policy, it is spelled out that way on BSA's recruiting literature; it's a national guideline.