HelpfulTracks

I have worked with Special needs "kids" (some where adults and older than me at the time) as well as terminal children. Both can be extremely rewarding, but soul crushing at the same time. It is difficult when you loose one of those you have come close too, even though in some cases you knew that going in. So yes, for that reason, and others, it takes a special person to be able to do that for long the long term.

I prefer tight roll, loser cinch. That is what I teach the Scouts, but the end result varies based on the Scouts preference. I do miss the collarless shirts.

First, I’m adamantly opposed to blanket rules. I prefer that each Scout be judged on his/ her attitude and accomplishments. However, one of the requirements for being on the ballot for OA is approval of the Scoutmaster. We do that because the SM should know the qualities of the Scouts in question better than anyone else in Scouting. OA is not a rank or merit badge where the requirements can be checked off. It is an honor, where first the Scoutmaster must approve and then the Scouts. I have watched thousands of Scouts go through Ordeal and some have been 11-12 years old. Most of those 11-12 year olds struggle, with great difficulty, with some or all of the test. Some are exceptional and go through Ordeal without issue. Those that struggled are most frequently sash and dash. I have often disagreed with SMs on Scouts who have been put on/left off the ballot, but that is the process, and their prerogative. Also, if a very young Scout is surprised or upset that they were not honored, it may be an indicator that the SM or Scouts made the right call. It would seem to me that OA is seen as a right rather than an honor by those Scouts. I have seen the same attitude with Vigil, “I’m Brotherhood, ive done my time, now it’s my turn to be elected to Vigil.” That is just not how it works. It goes counter to the concept of Cheerful Service in the midst of irksome tasks and weighty responsibilities, as well as being unselfish in service and devotion to the welfare of others. As I have told Scouts who did not make the ballot and those that did but were not elected, continue to work hard at providing cheerful and exceptional service to others and you will almost certainly get on the ballot and you will be elected. But if you chose to take it as a slight, then you will almost certainly not.

Yes. We have a fundamental difference on Scouting. Scouting is not about CO's, Councils or really even Troops. It is about the Scouts. The Scout is the heart and soul of Scouting.The raison d'être of Scouting. A CO is a mechanism or structure to support Scouting, like so many others; district committees, council committees, lodges, whose purpose in Scouting is to help the youth have a better Scouting experience. The majority of the time I see a unit fold or move, it is due to neglect or mismanagement of the CO. The CO does own the unit, which really means the assets and meeting place. I have seen units fold with Scouts dispersing to other units, or moving in mass , even keeping their unit number (which is controlled by the Council) and their history. A CO cannot keep a unit (i.e. recharter) without a minimum number of Scouts and leaders, regardless of what they want. So if you believe a Unit is a meeting place and assets, then the Unit is the CO. If, on the other hand, you believe, like I do, that the unit is part of the Spirit of Scouting, it lives in the hearts, minds and actions of the Scout. And I would be willing to bet, if you polled Scouts and former Scouts, on what constitutes a unit, all those mechanisms like the CO would fall way down the list, if they made the list at all. That is not to say that all those mechanisms and structure are not important. In fact, they are vital.

I would hate to see this troop disband. The article is not specific as to how many leaders they need and for what purpose. I would imagine a good portion of the need is for instruction and activities. If so it would a great thing to see them team up with some Crews or older patrols from a couple of troops to help out with activities and instruction, leaving the adults to be free to handle any special needs issues like safety, transportation etc.

As I stated I often disagree with @David CObut I have to agree with him on this. The CO has every right, some would say obligation, to proselytize to the unit. But as I said, the CO is not the unit, the Scouts and volunteers are. If you don't like how the CO manages the unit, then move on. Both the unit and CO have their roles, if either side is unhappy with the relationship then they should withdraw.

That does seem to be in short supply these days. Wood Badger or not.

Well said.

I definitely believe they are equal in importance. There are times that some methods are more relevant to a situation. To me Ideals and Personal Growth are always in play. The rest rise and fall according to the situation. Take Uniform for example, as it seem be the lowest on most list. I have seen units present the troop necker at crossovers and watch the pride in the eyes of he new Scouts as they put it on and became part of the troop. . I have seen troops where most or all of the Scouts couldn't afford their uniforms and the unit did things to allow the Scouts to earn their uniform, through fundraisers and service, those Scouts were proud to show of they uniform that they earned. Even with my son, when he was a young Scout, if we stopped somewhere after a meeting or outing, he would remove his uniform shirt or cover it up. I could tell the reason was he felt it was a little bit "geeky". I never said anything, I just wore mine with pride. He saw how people reacted, telling us their own scouting stories or with compliments or just a simple thank you. After a time he stopped taking the shirt off in public. And all of those Scout t-shirts that only came out for Scouting events worked their way into his daily wardrobe to school and everywhere else. Today he is very proud to wear his uniform and show everyone he is a Scout. The sense of belonging and pride is a powerful thing.

Wood Badgers love their critters. I was given an beautiful wood cut of an Eagle.

I'm not surprised you disagree, we often do when it comes to the role of the CO. But I can tell you, as a Commissioner, I have seen CO's be heavy handed, appoint poor leaders or are too hands off (or have other issues) and the Scouts/Volunteers leave the Unit. The unit folds and the CO has no Scouting program. Those Scouts find a new CO and create a new unit or simply move to an existing unit. The Scouts are the heart of the unit, the reason for the unit, they are the unit. And I can tell you BSA policy agrees. Eagle Projects cannot benefit the unit. But a units CO can be the beneficiary of and Eagle project. Ergo the CO is not the unit. Else Eagle projects could not benefit the CO. The Unit and CO are two different entities with two different roles.

I am not giving him a pass. Simply pointing out the Bulgarians were foolish to let him film his show and expect him not to do what he always does. Organizations allow production companies to film because they get something in return, exposure, money, something.....The Bulgarians rolled the dice and lost. In fact they are almost certainly giving Grylls exactly what he wanted....publicity. And I wouldn't point to Grylls as a positive role model. He was "hired" to draw attention to Scouting, that is what celebrity does. It is up to us to teach the Scouts, not Grylls. Just like a council that invited Charles Barkley (not a positive role model) to speak at a fundraising dinner. They raised a lot of money to help Scouts, but we don't point to Sir Charles as someone to pattern themselves after. Had Sir Charles done something at that fundraiser to embarrass Scouting then I would have been critical of the council that did it. He didn't embarrass Scouting that night. The Council rolled the dice and won. So a bunch of Scouts had a better program.

There is a lot to unpack here. Can a CO make the request & make profit from the fundraiser? Yes Can the Unit decline? Yes. While the CO owns the Unit, it is NOT the unit. The Scouts and Volunteers are the unit. We routinely do service projects for our CO, and many of our Eagle Project benefit the CO, but there is no Quid Pro Quo involved. I also wonder how this request potentially impacts the program. Will it replace a meeting night once a month? Is it on a school night? If it is on the weekend, what happens when the "service" conflicts with a Camporee, Merit badge college, Summer camp or other event? What are the repercussions when most/all of the troop is tied up in non-scouting activities, like sporting event, Chorus, school talent show or science fair? What happens when the same 10 people grow weary of the monthly commitment to raising money for another organization, to which they have little or no attachment? Frankly, having been a member of Sporting Clubs, it seems like an odd request. I paid dues to belong. Concessions fell under one of two categories. One was a permanent concession run by an outside vendor for profit, the clubs benefit was having concessions. The other was concessions for events, which were usually outside groups like high school bands, clubs or Scouts that kept the proceeds for themselves. This really sounds like the CO (or some members of its board) has soured on the relationship and is looking for a way to justify keeping it. The whole thing feels like a slippery slope toward a bad ending. But that is just my opinion.

Oh, I don't know..... he is a TV personality with an established format. It's the whole scorpion and frog thing. It's kind of like Gordon Ramsey showing up at my restaurant wanting to film. I tell him sure, but no cursing, yelling at my staff or showing health code violations. Then he does all those things he ALWAYS does. Shame on me for thinking the scorpion wouldn't sting the frog. Common sense tells me to turn Gordon away when he shows up or grin an bare it when he does what he always does.

My son and I took WFA and I am not aware of any official pins are patches, though there may be one. I did a quick search and found some that appear to be unofficial, on etsy and ebay. You could search there.

As for Grylls being the "World Scout Ambassador,' if it gets more youth in Scouting and in the outdoors I am for it. Does it appear his shows are staged? Yes. Are they hokey? yes. But for the most part (gigging frogs in Bulgaria, aside) he has a decent reputation and as far as I am aware no real negative press (that said I haven't researched the guy). It is kind of like University of Oregon's football uniforms, not my style, but I am not the target. The kids seem to love it and gets them there. So.....

This has me scratching my head. I have never watch Bear Grylls, but I am aware of his shtick. The article said he and his crew had been briefed on the rules. So clearly the Bulgarians were aware he was there and filming. Why give him permission to film in the first place if all the things he normally does are off limits?

You would not be the first.

She is (was) a Canadian VENTURER SCOUT and earned their highest honor Chief Scout’s Award, but everything I have read she has eschewed Venturing, even asking “If the Venturing program is so similar why can’t they be the same program if they’re the same award?” when she was pointed toward Venturing by National who equated earning the Summit to being equal to Eagle.

No, CA and ACA are specific positions, as are Lodge Adviser and Associate Lodge Adviser. A Lodge/Chapter has numerous other Advisers, as an example for AIA, ceremonies, induction, for specific officer positions, etc., but those are not specified positions with a position patch. The Associate Advisers are generally more experienced Advisers that could step in for the Adviser in his/her absence.

Pardon me, but no. Go back and read the numerous articles, watch and listen to interviews, about/by Ms. Ireland. My opinion is her focus has almost always been about attaining Eagle for resume and scholarship purposes. From my viewpoint she and her father have had many negative and incorrect things to say about BSA, Scouting and negative implications toward Venturing. I don't think it is a stretch to say it has been a me, me, me focused effort. As for Silver Buffalo - I hope not. That award is for "truly noteworthy and extraordinary service to youth" and "exceptional character who have provided distinguished service at the national level." I don't believe it would be fitting, given some of her comments and actions, that she be honored in such a manner. Additionally, I have spoken to some of those involved in the policy change, I was given the distinct impression that Ms. Ireland was not only not helpful, but at times her comments and actions created impediments that had had to be overcome to make the policy change possible. It can be difficult to convince people that the process of becoming an Eagle Scout will be honored when you have a youth, and the adults enabling her, constantly and demonstrably flaunting the process. Let her follow the process, like every other girl entering Scouting BSA, like every Eagle before her, like every Eagle that has earned the Summit (and didn't get credit for work done prior to joining Venturing.) Anything less is not acceptable. She has been given the opportunity she asked for, but now that is not good enough.

I doubt there will be any capitulation on this matter, even though legislators are passing resolutions and making noise. Doing so would open Pandora's box on so many levels. For example, what do you tell the Life and Eagle Scouts that have joined Crews? All of the work they did as Boy Scouts, prior to joining Venturing, doesn't count towards awards in Venturing, but BSA would count work done by someone that didn't even bother to join Venturing? What do you say to all those girls joining Scouts BSA who have been in Venturing for years? Sorry, your work as part of BSA does not count, but we are going to allow someone who has never been in Venturing to count their work? NO! I am also thoroughly disappointed in seeing her wear the Life rank at the State of the Union. She was also wearing a political button on her uniform.

The way the GSUSA councils statement is crafted (or appears to be) is a PR black-eye. I can see this stance if they felt the money was being misappropriated or mishandled, but if they are standing on "control of fundraising" in a situation like this then someone needs to go back to PR school. These were GSUSA Scouts, doing a Scouting project and GSUSA has a problem with other Girls Scouts raising funds for the family because they want to control the all fundraising? Even if GSUSA has a valid reason, the optics are a nightmare.

NOAC had a couple of sessions covering this. By NOAC 2020 all lodges should have consulted with their local tribes and transitioned to regalia that fits that local tribe. As part of that we are also to get their perspective (and accommodate it) about females in these ceremonies. From some second hand discussions I have heard, there is a wide range of responses. Some tribes have been adamant no's on regalia at all, others are OK with regalia but not females doing ceremonies. Some tribes have been neutral or ambivalent. Apparently, some have replied that as far as this type "ceremony" goes, in their traditions have females doing them. In at least one case, the tribe considered this closest to oral history or story-telling, which has be traditionally a female role in their tribe. If a tribe falls into the NO females or no regalia category, that lodge is to use BSA field uniforms and sashes. There was a discussion of using black robes similar to the ones originally used at Treasure Island, but I do not think that decision has been made one way or the other at this point. There was some concern, particularly with Southern Lodges, that black robes and torches in the woods has it's own negative history. That has been expressly forbidden by OA National. Lodges are not to do any other ceremony or use regalia in any Crossover/AOL ceremony at all. In fact, Lodges have been told to not loan their regalia to troops or individual that want to do the old ceremony. In no way, shape or form is the OA to be involved in the use a ceremony other than the official one or in using regalia IN THE CEREMONY. I put emphasis on IN THE CEREMONY because there is one caveat, lodges may perform demonstrations similar to POW-Wow at the events, but may not perform ceremonies in regalia.

I know of appeals failing, but it is unusual. It usually occurs where there is clear evidence a requirement was not completed, or where there are requirements are disputed, like merit badges not earned, and there is no evidence that they were earned. This case seems more of an interpretation of what the project should be. I would appeal and be very prepared to discuss what was done in the project and how it was carried out. By rule, the appeal board will need the information ahead of time to "research" the issue in question. Caution: One thing I am not sure of is if he fails all of the EBOR (meaning it goes all they way to National and is rejected) if he can go back and redo a project an try again. Logically, he could, but there is nothing I have found that states that. There is a sentence that says an Eagle candidate may have only one review (the appeals process is part of that). I have asked that question in the past, but never received an answer that was backed up in writing. Before you initiate a review I would verify that he can go back if his appeals fail. I would verify that with NATIONAL, not just your local council. Since he is only 14 and has time to do another project, you may want to weigh your options.