Eagle94-A1

I can now understand why one troop let the Scouts advance using the requirements in the book they got as a brand new Scout instead of using updated requirements. Although that did hurt one Scout when he transferred to another troop that followed BSA policy. I know my youngest son's den is still using the June 2015-December 2016 requirements for advancement because updated books won't be out until Fall.

Other ideas: 4) Do not keep changing requirements on various things. They completely changed the CS adavancement less that 18 months they new requirements went into effect. They changed requirements for Second and First Class months after the revision. For cooking MB, the requirements changed something like 5 times in 7 year; one changed occured months after a previous change! 5) make the Webelos Program less Cub Scout and more Boy Scout. I am seeing so many ill prepared Webelos crossing over, then leaving. I do not know why this is happening, whether the current training is poor, or people do not care and want to continue doing things the way they arr comfortable with. But I am seeing those packs that continue to treat their Webelos as Cub Scouts, and not preparing them for Boy Scouts by increasing standards and upping the ante so to speak as the having the most new Scouts quitting.

SM got the 4 month terms from a podcast. And I have heard of a troop doing that due to sports seasons. I have not seen it in action, so I do not know how it will work. Plus the POR requirement does not have to be filled in one specific POR, you can use multiple PORs. For example, Oldest has his 6 months for Eagle from being SPL (4 months) and Librarian (2 months) The reason I am OK with it in the big scheme of things is because of the ASPL/SPL situation. That is my major concern. And I too feel that one adult is manipulating the situation. I think one adult honestly believes in the approach since he's done it in other organizations. The idea is the ASPL is trained by the SPL for 2 months, and begins planning his 4 months while ASPL. Another adult who agreed to it is in an organization that does that for their VP and Pres. So he said it can work too. But one adult pushing this commented that it would prevent the same scouts getting reelected as fast as they have been. That is concern for me. I know him and another adult have complained that the same folks keep getting reelected. part of that may be legitimate concern. part of it may be that their sons have not been elected to office. I know they wanted to do that at the patrol level, but when I commented how Scouts who want to be PL and need a POR would be unable to become a PL due to APL not counting towards advancement, the idea was nixed. Although they adults did say the idea could be reevaluated if the ASPL/SPL situation works. In all honesty, I am happy that the adults are willing to have monthly PLCs, even if only for 30 minutes during game time. I see it as a small step forward.

Update from Scouters' meeting. SM will be staying in position. We will be having monthly PLC meetings for 30 minutes the first Monday of each month. Additionally the terms of office will be 4 months long instead of 6. The one of the things I have reservations on is the selection of ASPL and SPL. This election, both ASPL and SPL are going to be elected. Next election, the ASPL will move up to SPL, and troop elects ASPL. Again got reservations, but have seen this format work in other organizations. Had a feeling we would be going this route since 2 adults were pushing this, and a third is in an organization that does it and is comfortable with it. Thankfully it is essentially an 8 month committment on the ASPL's part, and not a 12 month commitment. We have a lot of folks involved in extracurriculars that would not have a chance to run if we were doing 6 months terms still. Good news is that they didn't push it down to the APL/PL level as originally proposed. I think what helped prevent that from happening is the fact APL doesn't count towards advancement. And following the "elect APL and move up to PL" route would cause some problems for some of the Scouts who want to serve as PL, but need POR time. My other concern is that the Scouts are getting no input into this decision. I think most of them won't care to be honest. But I think a small minority will be upset. Overall I am willing to try this. I think this is a good compromise amongst the adults. Good discussion on the pros and cons of everything.

NSPs officially came about August , 1989. Same time they did away with Skill Awards, time requirements for T-2-1 ranks,, no more Scouts on BORs, etc. But some troops apparently did it like your troop prior to that, and it influenced National. Although I bet how the LDS troops do it, i.e. 11 year old Scout Patrol, caused national to create NSPs. I know my troop tried it in 1986 at the request of the council, and it was a complete failure. Every time I've seen NSPs in action, it is either a failure, or turns into Webelos 3. But that has been my experience. Some ideas. 1) LISTEN TO THOSE OF US IN THE FIELD WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!!!! (emphasis, ok maybe a little shouting in frustration at National. ) While there are a multitude of examples of National not listening to us, I'll give you 3. First is the Eagle Palm Requirement change, aka "INSTAPALMS." 94% of those polled either opposed(18%) or strongly opposed (76%) the removal of the tenure requirements. that's a super majority STRONGLY opposing the decision, and a near unanimous decision against it. Then 2 years after the polls come out, they go against what nearly everyone wants. Second example is the Revamped Cub Scout Program. The July 2015 Cub Scout program was 5 years in the making, had members with direct field experience with Cubs Scouts, had members asking for ideas for improving and taking input, etc. IMHO it was a major improvement. Yes it was more time consuming, more planning at the Den and Pack levels would be needed by volunteers, But it was completely doable. Then without any notice, without any feed back from the members of the committee, national changes the program after 19 months. They gave it no time for folks to work it through before changing the program. Third example is the changing of camping requirements for the T-2-1 requirements. "OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING." I hear about how Scouts are advancing, but don't have basic camping skills. People wanted more camping, and they got it, only to have it changed back. 2) Less Focus on Eagle/Advancement. Yes I'm an Eagle. But Eagle is not everything in Scouting. I have seen folks whose parents are pushing their sons to get it, even if the son has no interest. I've seen parents do shortcuts and "pencilwhipping" to get their sons to Eagle. I've seen parents know more about their sons' Eagle projects than the sons do. 3) Get rid of the "One and Done" mentality in training. Last time I did ITOLS, they wanted folks to hand out paper rank badges for just observing and doing the skills one time. get back to 'master the skills" and " the badge represents what the Scout CAN do, not what he has done." More later.

CC is not active except for BORs. The one committee meeting we had was actually run by an ASM (Gunship) and I was there. It involved assigning duties to parents, and determining what fundraisers to do. Also explaining for the umpteenth time how Boy Scouts is different from Cub Scouts to the new parents. Only time you see the committee is for BORs otherwise. I agree, having everyone on the same page would help. And regular meetings are key to that. But several folks do not want to run the troop by committee. As noted above, there is resistance to having monthly PLC meetings at the Scout level.

Best no cost fundraising idea may not be feasible in all areas of the country. One troop in southeast Louisiana sold "Snow Insurance" where if there is snow, the troop will clear your driveway and sidewalk. When I lived down there, no policy holder needed to make claim. I'm wondering if the troop honored their insurance policies the only time I now of true snow hitting the area: when the Saints won the Super Bowl.

IMHO his term ends in 3 weeks, so I am not concerned about replacing him. To answer Fred's questions: On a different note things may get interesting. SM may be stepping down. His recommendation for a replacement is Gunship since he has a history with the CO. We already know the CO won't appoint me since I am neither a member of the denomination nor congregation. Gunship grew up in the congregation, but is a member of a church closer to his house. Pray for me and my Scouts.

Thanks, I need it. One adult is classic Type A personality. He's known on the threads as "Gunship" because he he doesn't just hover, he jumps in and takes over. He grew up in the troop as a youth, and came back years later when the troop he was with folded. Thing is he is trained, but thinks training is useless since he is an Eagle and knows better. Apparently the troop did some interesting things back in the day, and he thinks it's perfectly OK to do them. Reminded him that the troop did fold, and that could have been one of the reasons for it folding. He blames the pack's CM for sending the Webelos to another troop for the troop folding. Thing is this, if you have an active, Scout-run program, you can survive without a feeder pack. It is harder and more time consuming to do, but I've seen it done.

Hopefully GSUSA, unlike the BSA, will listen to its members.

Current status. SPL has not followed through on his campaign promises when he ran. He's has not organized things, has not held a PLC since January when he attempted to run the Annual Planning Conference, which was taken over by the adults, and appears to have lost interest since when messaged, or called, he does not respond. Long story short ASPL, QM, and adults have taken over at times by assigning youth to teach.It is very frustrating and disappointing. Gunship wants to remove the SPL, who only has a few weeks left in his term. Here is where it is getting interesting. Gunship and a few others are now saying the BSA way doesn't work. Gunship wants to use the model he grew up with, i.e. adult led. Tried to tell him we are NOT following the BSA model the way it should be done. When I mention that we are not doing monthly or even bi-monthly, PLCs so the folks know what is going on and can prepare for things, he says the Scouts don't need them. SPL tells them what to do, and they do it. No need for "committees." When I reminded him that when the SPL attempted to hold the annual planning conference on a different day of the week so that more than 45-60 minutes before a meeting could be spent making the calendar, Gunship and others complained about having to meet on another night, and that it should only take an hour to plan the calendar. Don't know about you guys, but I have never been to an APC that took shorter than 2 hours. And several have been all day affairs. Currently we still are missing 2 months of activities. Lots of back and forth on messenger amongst the core adults. finally getting a Scouters' Meeting. Hopefully matter will get resolved.

Considering how anal retentive National is about branding, I bet you a Death by Chocolate Dutch oven cake the next time you are in NC that this has been coordinated with national. I see this happening everywhere.

If I could upvote you 100 times, I would. We have 2 packs feeding us. Over the past few years, from one pack, everyone is staying. (10 for 10) But the other, has a 50% attrition. Out of 9 scouts who crossed over 12 months ago, 5 remain, and several of us are concerned we are going to lose 2 of the 5 still. And of the 3 who crossed over 3 months ago, 1 remains. I bet it would be lower if I could remember all the folks we lost from the other pack. And the difference is how the awards are earned. One pack makes them work for it, the other doesn't.

1) As others have commented, your pack is doing it wrong, way wrong, and it is hurting the boys. They know they have not earned their ranks. Their parents know they have not earned their ranks, and when they become Boy Scouts and must master the skills to advance, they and their parents will have an extremely hard time adjusting. I predict 1/2 of those crossing over will quit within a year. Why I say that? There is a pack locally that is lax with their advancement policies, and that is happening. The pack's Webelos are not prepared for Boy Scouts, and the parents are constantly hovering trying to get their kids advancement they have not earned. All because of the precedent set by the Cub Scout pack and their lax policies. And they are not as lax as your packs either.3 2) What are you teaching your Cub Scouts if you allow short cuts? How can they be proud of wearing rank they have not truly earned? 3) Why can't folks just follow policy?

I would look at the topic Shug Emery has done on his channel. Just remember there are somethings he does you should not, i.e. riding a unicycle with a lit stove. https://www.youtube.com/user/shugemery

That standard was in a powerpoint for early adopters. At the Cub level 2 adults over 21, one of whom must be a registered Scouter, can work with all boy dens, BUT one registered female over 21 MUST be in attendance at all functions of an all girls' den. Gotta love the double standard.

One troop I know plans on getting around the female scouter on camp outs with "family camping with their dad and/or brother." While they have not thought about meetings yet, bet they use "patrol meetings" to get around the meeting issue. One thing that hit me, will patrol day activities that currently do not require an adult now require one?

I'm sorry, I am taking things to personally of late..I admit the past 2 weeks have been stressful at work. I was hoping to have a relaxing weekend camping to bleed off the stress.That didn't happen and several things happened that made the stress worse. Again I apologize.

Since I believe below is addressed to me, I will give my responses. But my first question is this: Are you familiar with OA election procedures? In order to be on the ballot, a Scout must be First Class or higher, have 20 days and nites of camping, including one long term camp in the past 2 years, and must have the SM's approval. A SM can withhold approval for any reason he wants. BUT once the SM approves the names on a ballot, they are eligible to be elected. Then it is in the hands of the youth in a troop. And if the unacceptable Scout is elected, there is nothing the SM can do because he had already approved the name for election. How is it the OA Adviser and team's fault if the SM, upon being told the election results, starts making a scene? How is it the adviser's fault if the SM refuses to go to an area out of hearing of the youth of his troop to calmly discuss the matter? How is it the fault of the advisor if the SM continues to be confrontational after the the decision of the OA team to leave. How is it the Advisor's fault that the SM is screaming and cursing at him and the election team as they are in the parking lot leaving? I know not every situation is the same, but making a blanket "clear indication that the OA advisor messed up...." is not right. Sometimes the SM is at fault in these matters. Agree an OA election is not worth fighting over. That's why when I realized the SM would not listen to reason and continued to yell and curse, I ended the discussion and told the team to pack it up. But how did I as an advisor "mess up" when SM follows us into the parking lot yelling and cursing at us as we leave? Correct, OA had no need to stay. The election was completed, and as a courtesy the SM was informed. So again, How did I mess up when the SM started yelling and cursing at me and the youth, following us to the parking lot as we left. Agree. It would have been condescending, arrogant, and prideful if I tried to argue with the SM. But would you call it condescending, prideful, and arroganrt when the SM follows us out and yells, "you don't know [anything] about the OA," when I've been active with the OA for several years and was the Chapter Adviser?

That is why any issues, concerns, or problems a SM has with the Elections Team and/or Advisor need to be dealt with privately and calmly. I know I have had a few of those over the years. But when a SM starts yelling and berating the youth election team members, that is when an advisor needs to step in. And if a SM continues to make a public spectacle by yelling and berating the youth and the advisor who is trying to calmly and privately discuss the issue, then it is time for the OA election team to calmly leave like I did.

I guess this would be anecdotal, but here it goes. One of my Scouts had "delayed entry" into the air force. He could not get his EBOR in before basic training, and he turned 18 during training. Long story short, he comes back from basic, gets a BOR scheduled, and the night of the BOR, the district rep discovers that he missed the no questions asked deadline by 2 days, and he needed to appeal to national. They had a nice "chat" with him, wished him well on his appeal, and stated they will be more than willing to do an EBOR for him. He got Eagle, but by the time everything was approved and done, he left for active duty. Never did have his ECOH.

I had an SM try to intimidate my Arrowmen into taking off a name of a Scout he didn't think was worthy AFTER he approved it. It got very heated when I intervened. This happened to be the same SM w whom I found out rigged the election previously by telling the Scouts who to vote for so all three eligible could get in (back when there was limits on who could be on the ballot),

This is what causes problems: folks ignoring the procedures and doing their own thing. OA Election Team Should NEVER have added a Scout's name to the elected sheet simply because the SM recommends them. That is not how it is done. From personal experience, I know youth on an election team can get intimidated at times by adults. So my question is, where was the adult adviser to intervene on behalf of the election team?

IMHO, I an guessing someone at the troop/council royally screwed up, and the only way to resolve the situation was to get the national team to intervene.