DuctTape

Scout-led. 'nuff said.

I recall some events, patches were only available to "early-bird registration".

I agree Matt. I have always looked at advancement and the requirements as part and parcel of the scouting adventure. If the program is diverse, and adults do not shortchange the kids, the requirements will be accomplished by and within a quality program. You are correct there is a disconnect from advancement and program. or worse, the program is advancement. Example: Every campout the scout should be presenting themselves to their PL with proper clothing and a complete pack. This should be SOP. It is SOP when I lead trips for adults. I provide lists and help to ensure they have what is needed; allow them to borrow gear from me. But prior to me leading them into the woods, I make sure they have everything. Final check at the trailhead. If done well, a scout will rarely one&done any requirement because they are all a regular part of the adventure. If most reqs are one&done, then take a look at the program and where the scouts are being shortchanged.

I do not believe the SM clears the scout for the BOR. The SM conference is not necessarily the last requirement signed off, nor is the SM conference a check of readiness or completion of the other requirements. It is the responsibility of BOR to ensure completion of the requirements. While we may quibble over pass/fail, the BOR can just be suspended and scheduled to reconvene at a later date. Another aspect which I believe needs further discussion is the concept of not penalizing scouts for adult error. It appears that this has been taken to the extreme. What constitutes error vs outright fraud? Is a scout granted all ranks just because some adult signed all his requirements in the book? Do we just throw our hands up and say "we dont penalize the scout for adult error" and give the kid his Eagle badge? If not, then there is some discernment to be made for situation less than this ridiculous scenario. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to formulate a legalistic description as individual scenarios cany vary. I submit this is one purpose of the BOR, to make this judgement at the local level. Not a retest of requirements, but when discovered a requirement was not completed it can be rectified. The BOR should discuss with the scout how to rectify the situation, suspend the BOR and reconvene.

IMO Charting and membership (youth and adults) should be completely separate. The Charter is an agreement between Council and the COR. Membership is something else entirely. IMO, the Charter should not include any membership names of youth or adults, except the COR who attests to the current numbers of youth and registered adults delineated by troop and committee.

Ours has as well.

What is allowed vs what should be done in executive sessions? Having served on an executive board (not associated with scouting), a well run board with ethics (and sometimes by law) will only discuss matters in executive session which outside disclosure may harm the organization financially, or a person. For example, discussion regarding personnel matters: the specifics, legal and fiduciary consequences would be discussed in executive session however the vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent to the rest of the committee. Sale of real property, the discussion in executive session would only happen if the discussion would adversely affect the sale for the organization and again the final vote (and arguments for/against) would be transparent. Of course this is the ideal and all boards are run by people who make errors either by ignorance, expediency, or malice. Many times I have had to speak up in executive session to remind the other memebers that the discussion of confidential info has concluded, and the rest should include the larger assembly fro transparancy (in my case by law). What I find abhorrent is that those who use executive sessions not as a means to protect individuals privacy (personnel matters) or protect the legal or fiduciary matters of the organization but to hide the decisions and the votes of the specific executive board members, or to circumvent the will of the larger assembly. When this happens, the trust no longer exists and without trust, leadership becomes authoritative. So regarding Council, District, Troop operations... IMHO, this is antithesis to the values of scouting and should not be tolerated by scouters and has no place in Scouting.

Having served on a jury where multiple charges were presented. This type of thinking was not present at all. What the multiple charges allowed us to do was to deliberate on the specifics of each charge to determine if the defendant was guilty of any of them. In our case, and I surmise in most others, the difference in the charges was the particulars in the law specific to each charge. The judge was excellent in providing instructions so we understood exactly what was needed to have been proven by the DA beyond a reasonable doubt to support each of the different charges. Some of them were unbelievably specific. Prior to my service I did not know that the jury had to parse all the details for the specifics. I thought that was the judge's job if the jury said "guilty". Jury duty was not easy, but it was a fantastic learning experience.

If she is in the position, it counts. If she is failing to perform, then she should no longer be in the position. My initial thought was also, 5 scouts and an SPL? Superfluous position. You have one patrol, and the PL.

What I observe in the highest performing units: Patrols planning and executing outings independently (and sharing/advising via the PLC.) Scouts taking personal responsibilty for their own advancement (and encouraging/helping others in their Patrol) SM/ASMs using the Socratic Method to help a PL, SPL, etc. make decisions. (and recognizing the instances when these questioning techniques need to be at the SM request). Regular, ongoing SM conferences throughout the year, not just as an advancement check-off. (Every meeting conferences are happening.) Troop Committee has multiple members who fulfill the responsibilites without interferring with the scouts program.

Welcome! Having a a strong and functional Comm will make your job easier. You can focus on program as is your responsibility. Look forward to hearing your success stories.

The "approval" as I have always believed is solely whether the Committee is able to provide the necessary logistical and financial support. ie, two-deep leadership, transportation, permits, etc. The only reason for "disapproval" IMO is b/c the troop committee is unable to facilitate providing e.g. enough drivers for the activity. The primary purpose of the Comm is to support the Scouts plan, not approve/disapprove their plan.

IIRC BoRs were originally conducted by volunteer community members of high esteem with the primary purpose of helping scouts learn and grow in the interview process; to learn to sell themselves to prospective employers. It had little to do with actual rank, but was just another means, purposely created to which scouts would grow. It is beautiful to see how all the methods and processes when understood and used with fidelity underscore this basic tenet of Scouting; Growth. I try to remember this with all I do. Every conversation, every suggestion, every decision is predicated on whether it provides for scouts to grow, or does it shortchange them the opportunity, the promise of scouting. I believe this is what makes scouting unique compared to all other youth activities except perhaps 4-H (although I am not sure how intentional it is within their history and structure as it is with Scouting.)

My first take on your latest post: It appears (please correct me if I am mistaken) the SM and PLC are not leading the program? It appears parents are making decisions. If the parents are ASMs, then they are to be following the direction of the SM. In their absence, a specific ASM should be the acting SM, and this person should be chosen beforehand by the SM. Other parents are "observers only" they should not be interacting with the scouts much at all. They should never be interferring with the program, which undermines the SM or the PLC. Troop committee members are also just observers are not particpants in the program. It appears that the adults in the troop need a reset to understand the specific roles of SM, ASM, troop committee and parent observers. Also, specific training for all Unit positions including how to empower the Scouts to move the troop to Scout-Led. IIRC, it was Barry who recommends training the parents. I agree with this too.

If scouts and scouters are not following the Scout Law, and the associated behaviors are ignored then an additional code of conduct will just be another list of specific behaviors which are repeated and tolerated by inaction. IMO Focus on behaviors and the damage to relationships, not a piece of paper.

Ugh!!!! Might as well begin folding up the tent now. There is no way in hades this promotes any of the aims utilizing any of the methods. IOW, it ain't Scoutung. I won't argue about it b/c any hypothethicals, "but if the scouts did..." would be pure hogwash. None of any potential hypotheticals would manifest in reality, except as an anomaly. Edit: and *I* worked in the computer gaming industry at one time.

I guess I am used to a cub program which was 95% done at the den level. Dens met completely separately from the pack. The only interaction with otjer dens was pinewood derby and B&G. Pack meetings were rare and short, and we just stayed together as a den or with our parents.

As far as procedures for the scenario. The GTA is intenionally vague about a specific process but provides descriptors to help a unit leader navigate how to be respectful to the other adults and scouts while ensuring the mB requirements were actually completed as written. The gta is not written in a step by step, must do list, process, but invokes the scout law through discussion. IMO, this is the way it should be; less legalistic, more scoutlike.

I use a tarp quite a bit. I do not bring poles for it, and rarely need them. I pitch the tarp using available trees. For raising the center in a dining hall style pitch, I typically use a center tie out and raise it up from an overhanging branch, or a run a ridge line between trees to which the center gets tied onto. In the last 20 years, I have used a pole, but it was a dead branch I cut to length. I would encourage folks to have the scouts not bring tarp poles. For a variety of reasons: The rigging of the tarp itself is an exercise in problem solving and utlizing scout skills. Promotes alternative tarp pitch ideas. Less weight to carry/store. Cost. In general I fall into the camp of not buying gear when scout skills are an easy solution.

I remember when the world crest was given after attending an international event. Regarding neckerchiefs, when did they change from the cub scout yellow for all cubs, then a blue webelos? Having a different neckerchief for bobcat, wolf, etc... seems excessive. At the troop level, they have only one, except an Eagle Scout might wear an Eagle neckerchief.

There is a problem when a newsletter and the GTA contradict, and worse when sections of the GTA contradict. In this case, I do not see a contradiction. The "should" is specific to "before starting", but the conversation is still required and the SM signature acknowledges said conversation.

Based on your description, I am assuming the camp has been having photogrphs taken and then the scouts then make a sketch from the photographs? While I would not deny the scout, I would expect better from the camp and the mbc. It is apparent they are trying to do things as quickly as they can without the primary focus to the scout's growth. IMO, the camp is denying the scout a real opportunity to go out and watch the moon while making a sketch of it. The purpose is more than a sketch of the phases. It is to provide the scout a real opportunity to engage in astronomy. The reason for a sketch is because it takes time; the scout is not just making a quick observation but having a worthwhile experience. Now if I was the mbc and a scout came to me and said, it is raining tonight, what if I went out and took a photo of the moon and then did my sketch for this night while in my tent. I would say , "sure, sounds good." And then counsel the scout, "when explaining the changes perhaps include what you were unable to witness from the the still photograph compared to sketching the moon live. I look forward to seeing your sketches and hearing about your observations. Oh, and remember to have your buddy with you. Have fun!"

I would disagree that simply pointing to something held up is the same; that would indeed be a circumvention. In the scenario with the blind scout, the mbc recreated the night sky with a tactile means to observe it and the blind scout had to find the correct constellations by touch. One might argue this would be even more difficult for a sighted scout. Had the mbc just held up a tactile version of the constellation, that would not suffice. Just as if the mbc held up a printed paper with the constellation and a sighted scout pointed to it. In the example of the blind scout the term observe was creatively adjusted to accomodate the tactile observation skills of the blind scout. The requirement was completed as written. So no, not the same as just pointing to something held above you. I understand you do not desire to litigate the specific requirement here, but it might help to have a third party weigh in on the specifics. In the end this is really the issue, since it appears the Unit Leader is supporting the need for the scout to complete the requirement agreeing with the Adv Chair (he/she has apparently deferred their authoity to the advancement chair that it could not have been completed as written).

Unless the mB -counselor did in fact take liberties and the scout did not complete the requirements as written. Creative means is not license to modify/ignore the requirements. I remember the article in which you reference. The mbc basically made a braille version of the sky for the scout to observe via touch. The scout did indeed observe in the night sky and identify the required constellations.

This section is not for requirement interpretation, but for those circumstances where it is plainly evident the scout could not have completed the requirements as written. Such as Astronomy merit badge signed off when the the night sky was unobserveable. This situation also highlights a common complaint I have of using these "camp reports" instead of blue cards, alienating scouts from the advancement process.