HelpfulTracks

What in particular is your issue with the training? What improvements would you recommend?

The boys in my Troop have experienced the following in the last 12-18 months; individuals have attended National Jamboree, NOAC, Philmont, Seabase, Swamp Base, NYLT (participant and staff), NAYLE, Conclave, NLS and more. As a unit they have had biking outings, white water rafting, back packing, shooting sports, caving and climbing, winter sports, sports, water sports and Summer camp. They have planned over the next 15 months as a group Northern Tier, Summer Camp, white water rafting, mountain biking, back packing and more. Individuals will be attending World Jamboree, Philmont, Seabase, NYLT (staff and participants) NAYLE and more. Our Scouts do not look to National, or for that matter the unit's adults, to plan their program. It certainly doesn't look like they feel they have lost anything. I will say that in my experience dealing with youth, both in Scouting and other programs, youth reflect the attitudes of the adults around them. If the adults are upbeat about the program that can be provided so are the youth, and the youth plan programs accordingly. If the adults are miserable about the program, usually so are the youth.

I can see that perspective and it makes sense. I think if I were SM I would want to sit in on the "Scout Conference" to make sure it does not stray from BSA policy. But at the end of the day, I still see this as the SM responsibility and I look at SM conferences as not only being done at time of advancement. If I have a youth that is lacking Scout spirit, I am not waiting until he is ready to advance to have that conversation. In fact, I have had that conversation with Scouts individually, in small groups and as a troop. And what happens if/when an SM overrules the Scout panel? How does that effect the panel of Scouts spirit. I think what really triggered my response is two things. First, is a one time (per rank) sign off by Scouts in order to advance, in a requirement area that is very subjective and a 24/7 requirement. It is easy enough for a Scout with sufficient skills and maturity to sign off on knots, packing, compass reading etc. But Scout Spirit is way more subjective and something a SM should be monitoring continuously, not at the point of advancement. The second trigger is "instead of the Adults running the BOR." This is specifically against policy as BoR members must be over 21. Not much more I can say on that.

So you are from the Far East Council, I take it. No, that is certainly not BSA policy, in fact it is directly opposed. Good luck sorting it out.

There are official BSA guidelines in the Guide to Advancement. Unfortunately, it prohibits what you are attempting. First, additional requirements are prohibited. So the Spirit Board as a part of advancement is prohibited. Second, BoR’s are to be conducted by adults (other than direct contact unit leaders). Additionally, I have been involved with OA a various levels and have never heard of such a thing. In fact, I’m not sure how I feel about Arrowman sitting in judgement of another Scouts spirit. If you want a spirit board to recognize great spirit, that’s not a bad idea. But to make it an obstacle to advancement is against policy and is a bad idea that will likely backfire.

Sounds like a well defined and reasonable policy. Good luck. Though the AT LEAST part could be interpreted differently by everyone. p.s. - not that I would good looking to correct them given the situation, but BoR are no longer required for Palms. Probably best to let that one lay were it is for now since you are making progress.

Nice addendum. well said. I love that last sentence. I would say that I cannot remember a training course I have conducted that I didn't learn something new. I actually told my son, who has gone through many training courses as well as staffed NYLT, the same thing when he started in with talk about having learned all he can with Scout training. Fortunately, he has come around.

Having trained hundreds of Scouters I would say youth experience being a predictor of a quality program is highly overrated. I have trained some fantastic Eagle Scouts and former Scouts that are an attribute to Scouting, and I have had some that were un-trainable. The un-trainable one think they know everything, (and are mostly wrong), run units with an iron fist and think the 3 Aims of Scouting are 1. make Eagles, 2. make Eagles, 3. make Eagles. I would estimate that most of those I have trained had no youth experience. Some gave me cause for concern, but many have approached training with enthusiasm and eager to learn. A good many have gone on to make fine Scouters. Those that come in willing and eager to lean, want to follow the program and leave knowing that there is still plenty to learn will usually do well. Those that come in thinking they know everything and are determined to put their own personal stamp or brand on their unit usually find themselves in struggling/failing units with a dwindling number of Scouts.

Thank you, I missed that. I see that as adding requirements to advancement. I can agree with the SM that leadership is important and needed, but adding it as a requirement for a SM conference is a poor way to handle it. He is adding leadership beyond the PoR requirement as rank requirement. If he is conducting SM conferences, for other reasons or other ranks, at times other than camp outs he is adding to the requirements.

If you don't mind saying, what was his reasoning?

That is incorrect. The ONLY ceremony that may be conducted by OA for Crossovers, is the official ceremony, which is done in field uniform only. There are no options to use regalia in Crossovers. Consulting with local tribes is for regalia for all other ceremonies is now required.

@qwazse - I was at the Ceremonies panel . . . Highlights . . . Crossover - only approved ceremony is to be conducted by OA which is done without regalia. OA can do a presentation separate from the Crossover, using regalia, but must be separate and distinct from Crossover OA cannot lend, regalia to Troop or pack so they can perform old ceremony instead of OA OA members cannot perform old ceremonies apart from OA using OA regalia Reasons: this is a public ceremony that is often recorded, and many of those recordings showed OA Lodges conducting ceremonies that were off color and very offense to Native Americans, some were even frightening and potential dangerous to Cubs. Repeated request had been made to cease these ceremonies. Several calls PER WEEK were coming into National complaining about them, and legal action was being discussed by at least 2 tribes. It was agreed in order to resolve the legal issue, the OA would no longer conduct these ceremonies. Apparently you can Google Crossover and find a number of egregious examples, though many have been requested to be removed (I think by Tribal members) and have been. This policy does not effect other public ceremonies such as Call Out or Eagle COH. There currently are no plans to enforce any new policies here, but obviously if people are doing things that are offensive then I could see that changing. There are no changes in a Lodges ability to conduct other ceremonies (Pre-Ordeal, Ordeal, Brotherhood, Vigil) There is a regalia change Lodges should begin the process of converting their regalia of ceremonies over to local tribal clothing by end of 2019 This should be done in consultation with local native communities and tribes - there is no national apparatus to have these discussions, lodge are on their own to have these discussions as individual lodges or are free to come together with other lodge to have discussions with the Native American tribes Specific to females in ceremonies, please make sure that females conducting ceremonies in regalia is not offensive to these tribes Currently, the option exist to do ceremonies in Field uniforms (aka Class A) The optional use of black robes, like the ones originally used by Goodman and Carroll, are being discussed as an option, but nothing is official - this would be an additional option if approved, not a mandated replacement of regalia. POW-WOW regalia is not effected by these changes, this regalia should follow the traditions of Pow-wow. There are currently no official discussions about changing ceremonies contents or use of regalia and none are planned I think that about covers it.

@Setonfan Hey, yes I was there. But once I arrived I was so busy I didn't even think about accessing the forums. It was a great time, I wish you all could have been there.

A registered member of BSA who is 18-20 years old and met all requirements is eligible to be elected just as any other youth. He does not need to be nominated by the committee. He may also vote, just like the other youth. This is true if he holds the position of ASM or some other position as long as he is registered as a member of BSA. If you would like I can try to find the specific wording from OA material.

I don’tthink the question is about leaders as much as the new policy of 2 registered adults over 21 present for all Scouting activities. Regardless, direct contact leaders other than the SM can be 18+. It gets confusing. On the other hand, Maybe it is the beginning of allowing Scouts BSA to be eligible through age 20 like Venturing, Sea Scouts and OA.

Presumably, unless the plan is to have 3 registered adults (an18-20 yo MBC and 2 over 21) present for MB counseling.

Okay, enlighten me with evidence you have he has lied. I don't mean your opinion or the some contortion of "it's evident" or a mistake or misspoken, or an evolution of a position. I mean public lies that are provable beyond reasonable doubt.

If I had to guess the Likert Scale on this topic probably showed a plurality for and against, with a number of people in the middle with no opinion. That is fairly typical. I would also imagine that the strongly disagreed made up a larger portion of those opposed, than strongly agreed made up those for. Again, fairly typical that strongest reaction comes from one side in these surveys.

Gladly, you show me yours and I will show you mine. DO I need to go back and pull copies of the hand written forms or would aggregated date be sufficient? Or would I just be called a liar because you don't agree with my results?

That's the point, of all the people I argued with in opposition to girls being in Scouting, not one, ever, said we needed change to stem declining numbers. To a person it was about giving girls the same chance that boys have in Scouting. Something they were not getting elsewhere. That's the point, of all the people I argued with in opposition to girls being in Scouting, not one, ever, said we needed change to stem declining numbers. To a person it was about giving girls the same chance that boys have in Scouting. Something they were not getting elsewhere.

Popular support does not mean unanimous or even majority, but that said, even on this board it is the same few that are opposed. Just curious, if my experience tells me that there is popular support for this program, am I justified in calling you a liar because your experience is different? Am I justified if the my district and council's internal data shows popular support, am I justified in calling you a liar if yours doesn't? I disagree with National on a many issues, and at times I think they could screw just about anything up, but as a Scouter, I am beyond frustrated with Scouters calling people liars based off supposition, personal bias and no evidence.

Calling it a minority does not make it so. I was frustrated for a while feeling like I was in the minority when I opposed girls in Scouting. My experience is like that of FireStone's, most people I see are supporting it.

Im getting more than a little tired of hearing the 'it's all lies" refrain. I have been hearing Scouters argue for girls in Scouting since I returned to Scouting almost a decade ago. I argued against it until the last 2-3 years. So this change has come from within, the drum beat has been steady and growing louder for some time. Maybe it has not been the call from the LDS community (though I know many that support it), it has been loud and growing in the other 80% of Scouting. Is it unanimous? Clearly not. Is it even the majority? I cannot tell you. But it has been a vocal and growing community of Scouters for a while now.

Registered Scouters under the age of 21 (18,19 & 20 years old) are considered youth in the OA and are eligible to be placed on the ballot just like any other youth who has met the requirements. They are also eligible to vote, just as other youth. They also may vote for anyone on the ballot, including themselves. Explorers are not eligible for elections. Currently only Boy Scout are eligible. Starting 2/1/19 All Scouts BSA, Crews and Ships will be eligible for election to the OA if they meet the requirements. They must meet the requirements in the unit type they are elected, i.e. a Venturer, dual registered as a Scouts BSA, who meets the requirements to be elected in a Crew but does not meet the requirements to be elected in a troop, may not be elected in a troop, only a Crew.

Cubs - one coed pack - one book Crews - one coed Crew - one book Scouts BSA - separate gender troops - separate gender books Makes sense. If they were the same book people would be complaining that’s its coed. Seems people are searching for problems that don’t exist. Now if the two books have different programs, then I will complain as well. Until we know that to be the case, I just don’t get the complaining.