Eagle94-A1

Stupid question, wouldn't the current CORs have to vote to allow this? And if they vote to not allow this, will they be forced to by National with the threat of withholding the charter? And is this in preparation of all the forced mergers headed our way as some council have contested the mergers already?

If you look at older BSA literature, @DuctTape is 100% correct. Troop meetings were designed to plan and prepare for trips, and well as competition amongst patrols. Patrol Meetings were where the learning was supposed to take place, with older Scouts working with younger Scouts. Prior to 1989, advancement was not the focus of Scouting, having fun and experiential learning was. In 1989, the introduction of aged based programs, and especially OPERATION FIRST CLASS (sic), changed the focus to advancement. With aged based patrols, new Scouts were lumped into one patrol with a single older Scout as a Guide to teach and supervise everyone. Challenge with that was burnout because one Scout had to supervise everyone in the patrol, instead of having multiple Scouts mentoring the new guys. That led to adults taking over and turning it into Webelos 3. And the LDS model of segregating their 11 year olds into a separate patrol and having an assigned ASM to work with them, as in Cub Scouts, was the model for this. LDS 11 year old patrols had a very adult led and regimented program which led to constant repetition of the program. But because the 11 yo Scouts moved to a traditional patrol at 12, they never saw the repetition. And the adults, not the Scouts, created a program designed to get them to First Class in a year. Scouts had no input. But OPERATION FIRST CLASS was the main cause for the change of focus from fun and adventure, to advancement. BSA's research showed that Scouts who got First Class in 12-18 months stayed longer in Scouts. As a result National pushed advancement. But the research data had some major flaws IMHO. As an older Scout I commented that the data did not take into account how active a troop is. A "hiking and camping troop" with fun monthly outdoor activities will retain Scouts, and provide more opportunities for advancement. And I learned later as an adult is that LDS troops heavily influenced the data. First and foremost, every LDS male was registered, whether active or not. And LDS units had a fixed 11 year old program designed to get them to First Class before joining the rest of the troop. Even doing only 4 camp outs and no summer camp at 11, they got First Class stayed registered, even if they didn't show up again. But maybe I am an old fogey stuck in the past. My troop has not focused on advancement, but fun and adventure. Our Scouts stuck around until they aged out, or went off to college. And two Eagles did activities with us in college and before aging out. We are now in single digits, and folding at the end of the year. We have not had a feeder pack in over 15 years, relying on word of mouth and Scouts dissatisfied with their original troops to keep our numbers up. But several troops we would get Scouts from have folded, and the remaining ones took notes from us, and are doing more activities and being more youth led to prevent folks from leaving. The last time we had Webelos visit, some parents didn't like the amount of camping we did, or our emphasis on fun and adventure; advancement is the Scout's responsibility. There is a quote attributed to Baden-Powell, " Advancement is like a suntan, it just happens in the outdoors."

National could remove the double standard, i.e. 2 females can take males youth out, but 2 males cannot take female youth out.

Just don't let the council know who the unit's sponsor is. They will go after them for FOS.

Concur. Now I have " The end of the Civil War was near when quite accidently..." in my brain. Thank you so very much @RememberSchiff. 😀

I too hate the term.

IMHO, the membership was inflated for a long time. When I was a DE in the 1990s, I can tell you phantom units and Scouts existed. Anyone remember Ronnie Holmes and the Greater Alabama Council? https://www.heraldnet.com/news/ghost-unit-scams-haunt-boy-scout-operations/. And don't think it was just Alabama. It was all over. If you tried to clean up the mess, your performance reviews were poor because you took a loss in membership and units. Also LDS units registered all eligible youth, regardless if they wanted to be a Scout or not. Heck one LDS pack was completely in name only, and the Scouts were meeting only to play basketball. Those two factors are why I think we are seeing a "rightsizing" of Scouting America today.

Eagle Patch with Explorer/Venturing uniforms for 18-20 year olds were in the 1990s and 2000s. I had it on my Explorer shirt in the early to mid 1990s. When I worked for National Supply, and a de facto Uniform Policeman since our uniforms has to be 100% correct. My employee showed my manager the policy in the Insignia Guide, and he was allowed to wear it on his Venturing uniform. I think that changed when the old Venturing Bronze, Gold, and Silver awards became Venturing, Discovery, Pathfinder, and Summit ranks.

Once upon a time, Explorers, and Venturers, before the Venturing ranks came about, age 18-20 could still wear their Eagle on their green shirts. One of my national scout shop employees, age 19, wore the knot on tan uniform, but his Eagle patch on the green uniform, which was allowed at camp. This was 2001.

That is incorrect. Councils verifying the records of the Scout prior to the EBOR is relatively recent in BSA's history. Like since the late 1990s/early 2000s. Maybe even later as my memory is going. But I do remember I was denied my Eagle because the council records were messed up. Had to use my BSHB and the signatures in it to correct the councils records, and get my Eagle. Same thing happened to several of my friends, as well as several of my Scouts. And I do not know of any council checking Eagle project paperwork. In none of the councils I have been in, have Eagle Project paperwork. That has always been the responsibility of the EBOR. Now paperwork is the responsibility of the council, and they do check it. BUT the unit leadership now has access to those records, and can correct them. In my neck of the woods, unit leadership usually double checks the records prior to printing the application, and sending it to council for their approval. Which IMHO makes council approval redundant now.

Sadly the Powers That Be (PTB) in their more public communications do use the term "celebration" as well as saying the EBOR is not a "interview. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/11/07/an-eagle-scout-board-of-review-isnt-a-job-interview-its-a-celebration/ While they briefly mention, "While part of the board’s responsibility is to ensure that requirements have been met...," they later state " This candidate is by all intents and purposes an Eagle Scout when arriving at the board of review...Therefore, make the Scout’s Eagle board of review a celebration of their achievement." My question is, how can you "ensure that requirements have been met," but consider the person "an Eagle Scout when arriving at the board of review?" Now, I know that by asking questions about their experiences in Scouting, you can see if they really did the work.

YES! If you can find an old 3rd edition SMHB 2 volumes, there is a very good plan to starting a troop with new Scouts. Funny thing is, the best SPL i ever worked with was 12 years old. He was voted in, and beat older Scouts.

One reason why Scouting America doesn't cut off Scouting at 13 or 14, and makes Venturing the next stage, (emphasis) if you look at older, pre 1989 BSA literature. The middle schoolers look up to, and learn from the highschoolers. They will usually be the ones elected into leadership roles. Traditional, aka Mixed Age Patrols, were the standard. Unless you were LDS which used aged based patrols. Patrols could actually do things on their own without adults, including camping. Older members mentored and worked with younger members. Nowadays the lack of Scouter manpower, forces troops to focus on the Troop Method, and not the Patrol Method. IMHO, Scouting America has lost its way. Instead of focusing on adventure and fun to promote individual growth, the focus is now on MBs and getting Eagle. Instead of hiring and listening to folks with outdoor experience, Scouting America is hiring "Educational Leadership" experts with no idea how Scouting is suppose to work, but a ton of theories on how to develop youth. The one I met had no outdoors experience whatsoever, no jobs outside of academia, and was appalled when I said they needed to spend time at a summer camp. Even then summer camp is turning into outdoor school. And do not get me started on aged based patrols. I was one of the guinea pigs when it was beta tested, and shocked when it became the recommendation.

While I would "Be Prepared" to create a new, all-girls troop, February will be when the announcement on coed troops comes out. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on coed troops.

I noticed the second page has a photo of Green Bar Bill on it. I wonder if he is spinning in the grave with what is going on at national?

Well the Scouters, save 1 who is out of town and really just keeps reregistering for OA purposes, families, and Scouts now know. One family is extremely angry, they are legacy and wanted the Scout's name on the church's wall with dad. They were only focused on that, not the best interest of their Scout or the others. The other two families, saw it coming, and appreciate we lasted as long as we did. One even commented on they were surprised we didn't fold last year. The Scouts were completely different. The two Scouts were upset and holding it in by the looks of their faces. One broke down. The troop was his "safe space" where he wasn't bullied or insulted. The question that really struck me was "where will you be going Mr. Eagle94-A1?" I told them wherever the majority goes. I did not want to influence their decision, I want them to explore and decide on their own. But my gut tells me one troop will be a better fit for all four of the Scouts.

Just prepped my notes for the parents meeting, and for the Scouts afterwards. This hurts.

Well I told College ASM 1 yesterday. He took it stoically, and knew it was coming via dad. College ASM 2, although listed as "Scout," was informed today. He took it really hard. He thanked me for calling him and talking to him about it.

Very apt. As mentioned a lot of COs do not know what their actual duties are. And councils take advantage. A lot of CORs do not know they are voting members of the council, and if massed together can prevent somethings from happening. And councils depend on that fact to get things they want done that may not be in the best interest of the Scouts.

Once upon a time, everything belonged to the CO: money, equipment, memorabilia, etc. Sometime in the past 20 years that changed. Challenge is that our troop is so old, that some of the stuff we have predates the council. Also the council has been of NO help whatsoever, for over a decade now. Worse, they have been more of a hindrance than a help. The CC still remembers when he was district CC and was politely call a liar at a council meeting regarding a project he asked to work on. And I have relayed my stories of their interference in other threads. They have lied to us about events being cancelled last minute and why they sold property. So no Scouter active in the unit wants the council to get anything.

Well, the meeting with the CC went better than expected. He concurs with the exit strategy. But one interesting thing happened today. Ran into someone whose troop recently folded. Found out the council went after both the troop's money and equipment.

So I am in the process of dissolving the troop, and it is getting me depressed. I have been doing paperwork, making sure records are up to date so wherever they go, they won't have any advancement issues. I do not want my Scout to face the issues I had back in the day, or issues I have seen over the years. Also wanted to see what we can do to finish up advancement. Also created a calendar with remaining commitments: court of honor, Christmas party, and service project. I meet with the CC later today, and get to tell him we are dissolving the troop. That is going to be a challenging conversation. He has a long history with the troop, and sometimes I think his loyalty is to the troop, not the Scouts. But the CC has not been active since May, and has not been seeing what has been happening. The de facto CC and I realized that even if we did get 1 more Scout, because of the troop's make up, Some Scouts would be unable to do camp outs due to school activities, and it is hard to have a good camp out with fewer than 5 Scouts. And that is a disservice to the Scouts. This week we meet with the parents, and hopefully they will come. But last time I asked for parents to attend, regarding summer camp, no one showed up. I feel this is an issue we tell folks in person, and not in an email. Bad enough I got to tell the two college Scouters via text or phone. And I am also telling the Scouts. Keep me in your prayers.

At this stage of the game, I could care less if the council blackballs me. I already removed myself from district/council activities to focus on my unit. They cannot punish me via my sons, as I have heard some pros have done.

I wonder what the "Trust Issues" are? I know in one council, a camp that was originally in a trust was outright donated to the scout council. The council then sold it.

Forgot about the soda. Can anyone tell me why?