Col. Flagg

Yes, agree. As I have said earlier, I would like to see both proposal and plan signed off before works starts. I'd also like to see the final report signed off on by the district/council rep. This would avoid the candidates being "shot down" at the EBOR. I would say 99.9% of guys never imagine that they could get denied at the EBOR.

I have to agree with a few folks here. The way the program is intended to run does not really work once in the field. My pack also struggled every year to find qualified leaders for all den leader positions. Finding another super den leader to run Lions just would not work. I can appreciate that BSA take time to design the program, but perhaps they should ask the folks in the trenches.

This is what the SM and TC Chair are for. If they are the ones doing the brow-beating, it's time to get new leaders.

I will jump in here... I agree. Once the proposal is signed off and the plan written, there's the execution. Then the final report is written, submitted and signed. If the beneficiary signs off on the final report, they are saying the project met their requirements. Same with the SM. The final report logs the differences from the proposal to the plan through execution. One does not judge the plan, per se, but they do check to make sure Requirement #5 and the aspects of the project met expectations and satisfied the requirements. So, in a sense, they are evaluating the final report, not really the plan. I don't think the beneficiary needs to know about Scouting. They know how to review a proposal and when a project meets their expectations. They are merely validating when signing on the bottom line that they received what they asked for. It is the SM and TC Chair that validate with the Scout whether the requirements per BSA were met.

It sounds like the adults coaching this kid let him down. They are there to guide him and it sounds like that didn't happen.

I found this interesting. So units are supposed to come up with a Lion Guide, who is an experienced Scouter. Talk about taking away from the Pack. Usually the person that fits that role ends up being CM. If you are not staffed to roll out the Lion program as suggested in the PDF, I'd simply tell them you guys are not ready, Fred.

"Controlled Failure" is the term we use. We actually mention it as part of our recruiting. It keeps Bulldozer Parents from joining our unit. Our slogan ought to be, "If you can't stand to have your time wasted while kids are learning, we may not be the troop for you."

Try here. Says $20.

Sounds to me like the DAC needs to get on his Eagle coordinator at the district level and the SM/TC need to get on their Eagle coach. That said, you are right, the DAC can tell the kid where he *thinks* me may be lacking and give him this week to close the gap. Honestly, it sounds a bit less Pollyanna than it reads. Rather than looking for reasons to fail the kid, lets look for reasons to pass him. [meant generically, not directed at anyone]

Here's the problem though: The beneficiary, unit and district/council signed off on the Proposal and, I assume, the Final Report. If that is the case -- and it is unclear here if the latter was signed -- then it is the adults who screwed up here. @@dfolson has the following issues: Do any planning or development of his project. It was handed to him turn key from a city looking for labor. This will come out during the EBOR. The GTA allows for a verbal attestation as to the planning and execution too. I don't have the citation off hand, but I am nearly certain it is in there. Did not follow any of the District suggestions for changes. This is NOT a requirement and therefore not grounds for anything other than an adult getting their nose out of joint. Did not follow the directions of the city (to wait for 1 week after applying herbicide before planting - instead did entire project in 1 day) If the City was the Beneficiary and they signed off on the Final Report, this is merely a teaching point for the Scout, and NOT a reason to deny him an EBOR (which you can't do anyway) or to fail his project. ALL projects never come out as planned. THAT is the lesson these kids learn. In the business world, if my client signs off on my work they are accepting that I did the job to their satisfaction. If they don't sign, I have to re-do it. We have a proposal and a plan to go back to that outline the steps and the end-state. Any "scope creep" (added requirements not in the contract) are not relevant and cannot be considered.

We had this discussion in another thread. I agree with @krikkibot that once signed, the requirement is met and the proposal/plan is approved. I also personally do not believe the EBOR has any standing to "fail" a Scout UNLESS it was documented that the Scout failed to meet the requirement. For example, Section 9.0.2.7 says: This would excuse the Scout not using any of the suggestions given. They are called "suggestions" for a reason; they are not required to be used. Also, the onus here is upon the district/council "advancement administrator" to contact the Scout about any project short comings. If that didn't happen, the benefit of the doubt goes in the Scout's favor. As to whether he gets an EBOR or not, this section makes it clear: So the EBOR is granted and the project is reviewed. I *do* think, however, that the last sentence flies in the face of the mantra "once it is earned, it's earned" mantra. Once a requirement is signed off at ANY rank, even Eagle, it is considered done. Same with MBs. BSA should make this section clearer if they mean for the EBOR to be the last stop for approval. They will avoid this very situation is Scout know there's even a whiff of a chance of a completed, signed off project being rejected for some reason by an EBOR. There is no denying an EBOR (9.0.2.13 Evaluating the Project After Completion). Under this section the Scout is allowed: A BOR. The chance to update or make additions to his project to meet concerns. The right to let the project stand as is for review. Lastly I will note this quote: "However, in determining if a project meets requirement 5, reviewers must not require more planning and development than necessary to execute the project. These elements must not overshadow the project itself, as long as the effort was well led, and resulted in otherwise worthy outcome acceptable to the beneficiary."

My God, you ask someone to "read carefully" and then you make the leap that a term "certain people" means Muslims instead of it meaning terrorists. Did you even read what you wrote before you wrote it. How about this: While the text refers to the term "certain people", could it perhaps mean people from ISIS strong holds in those countries? People with family or organization ties to ISIS? People who are on a watch list? No, of course not. Trump's a racist so naturally he meant Muslims, when, being the rampant racist he is, he's not touched immigration for the other 87% percent of Muslims in the world. Or perhaps there's no need to define who the "certain people" are because the definition resides in the "existing screening and vetting procedures" referred to in the Executive Order. But of course, let's show ISIS exactly how we are vetting people so they can learn the play book and go around our security. Think about that next time you're on a plane. Again, "certain people" can mean terrorist too. But it is so much easier to think it means Muslim. It could mean left-handed people, why did you leave them out? Seriously, if this is all you have you are as wrong as the court. The Executive does not "legislate" either, but that's what Executive Orders are. But let's take your assertion that these courts are not legislating. The basis for the states' (Maryland and Hawaii) are that the travel ban "unfairly discriminates against Muslims". Yet no where is the wording "ban Muslims" in the EO. Nor does it exist in any of the vetting procedures documents according to the FBI and Justice Department. So by issuing a TRO against implementation of the ban, the court is prohibiting the exercise of Executive powers enumerated in the Constitution and other areas referenced in the EO.

Here is the text of the recent Executive Order related to travel from certain countries. Please highlight the section where the President "bans Muslims" or targets anyone because of religion. Thank you. Many of the most populace Muslim countries are not affected. Only seven: Iran (#6), Iraq (#12), Libya (#36), Somalia (#28), Sudan (#10), Syria (#19), and Yemen (#17). So out of 1.7b Muslims only 204m are subject to the ban. And it is a temporary ban. How it this anywhere close to a "ban on Muslims"?

And there's this... http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/26/despite-recent-concerns-fewer-canadians-are-denied-entry-at-us-land-border

And if they know how to cover their tracks through anonymous proxy servers, trojans and zombie servers, you won't be able to find them. Although I work in high tech my kids think I am a Luddite. That is, until I turned on their powered off iPhone and took a picture and sent it to them. That showed them that my concerns over their privacy was not overblown. It also illustrated for them why we did not allow them to have social media accounts until they were 18. No snapchat, no flickr, no instagram. Now they don't even miss it.

No one is being turned away for their religion. They are being turned away for their country of origin, residence or citizenship, and only from those countries that are known to have strong ties to terrorism and/or loose security. There are more Americans stopped, detained and searched for bringing in too much booze than there are Scouts of any kind being detained or denied entry for their religion. Seriously, let's be realistic here.

Well, one can pass the training and still make grave mistakes in judgement. For example, take weather training. There is a scenario in the module that says to be aware of weather far away from you and the impact it will have on you in your location. The example given is heavy rain up river. Would you still camp in an area that is obviously part of the flood plain even though it is an "approved" camping area by a BSA camp? Training and logic tell you no, yet some folks simply accept "it's a camp site so it must be safe" and camp anyway. Training is no good unless you apply it appropriately. Just yesterday a few storm chasers died in a car crash not directly related to weather conditions. Why? They forgot the basics; something that can happen to any one of us at any time lest we forget.

Frankly, I believe Eagle Scouts should be given a pass on IOLS when they become adults, especially if they re-up from Scouting as an 18 year-old. Leader training is more about the rules and regulations; something the youth don't get too much of.

FroggToggs. Best insulator/windbreaker, with a fleece and layers underneath.

Lawyers: The people who brought you a third gender.

I had heard this rumor too, that BSA was finding it hard to find an insurance provider and a company owned or run by a member of the board was the one picked to underwrite the policy. It does smack of conflict of interest but I am sure some lawyer somewhere has already looked at it and found it to be on the up and up. To the layperson it does should a bit shady. I certainly would not allow it if I were the head of BSA.

We had a few do food drives or a supplies drive for the homeless. Essentially, we went through the same steps we always did with more tangible (read:construction related) projects. We always ask Scouts to: Identify in a quantitative manner how they will document their demonstration of leadership. Talk through the planning of their project phases to make sure they have tangible milestones. Set objectives for what is a successful project. For a tangible project it is the completion of whatever is being built. For a food, blood or clothing drive the end result (quantity of items) is less clear, so the Scout needs to do some research. What would be an average day if the Blood Mobile pulled up at a Walmart and took donations? Is that a good benchmark? Get a few points from which to establish a "baseline". This will demonstrate planning and an expected outcome. Interview some blood drive workers or managers. How do they plan? How to they guage expectations and variables that might impact success. Document these meetings. After setting the baseline, establish your goals and promote. Adjust your final report based on outcome. As with any project, research and bringing in subject matter experts will help the Scout develop and refine his plan. This can be suggested by the coach/advisor, but in the end it has to come from the Scout. My two cents.

@@RichardB, since I started one of those threads I will respond. First, tour permit versus plans. Okay, I will cop to using the wrong word. So we can agree that the thread title should be Tour Plan going away. My fault. But, your first post is not really clear. You say permits went away in 2011 and plans went away in 2012, but you give a link to process and document called Tour and Activity Plan. So you'll have to forgive our confusion because when we read "Tour and Activity Plan" we think "Tour Plan". There's no semantics there, we mean the process by which units need to complete the online plan for various activities. We may not have used the full name, but when we say "Tour Plan" we meant Tour and Activity Plan. Still unclear is why you say the Tour Plan went away in 2012, when there is clearly a website and a document which is required whenever we travel outside of council. You can imagine our confusion. Rather than be helpful and explain why the TP went away, yet there is still an active link to something required to travel, you simply leave it to our imagination as to what you meant. Lastly, there's BSA bashing going on because of the following: There is a total lack of communication coming from BSA on an important administrative issue that affects your members. The existence of the Tour and Activity Plan's link, with no mention of it sun-setting, adds to the confusion of your members. The mismanagement of this issue, lack of communication and coordination, are just another straw on the back of the camel of volunteerism. An organization whose very motto is "Be Prepared" is doing nothing to prepare its paying members and volunteers to effectively execute the BSA program. A simple official post from someone in authority, outlining the timeline (giving enough advance notice) and what will be expected in future, communicated through national, council and district channels would have stopped ALL of this. Some call it courtesy, others call it doing one's job. I'd rather see such information communicated to me and my unit then read about Bob Smith taking over some council I will never visit, or the fact that Jan Stevens got a Silver Beaver. BSA missed the mark on this and, rather than accept accountability and clear things up, we get more excuses and blaming us for our frustration. Sorry, but there are few of the Laws left BSA hasn't broken on their handling of this issue.

Maybe he was hoping the new all-in-one Scouting channel (ScoutingWire) might actually carry that type of important news, rather than who is taking over various council positions. As it anyone outside of those councils would even care. Maybe the Scouting.org website would carry it? An internal memo to all CE to be sent to all districts? [crickets]

Are you talking about this video?