ctbailey

Pack Trainers need to attend EDGE Training, the replacement course for "Trainor Development Conference." The EDGE course is offered usually annually by the Council, and folks need to pre-register, as there is "pre-homework" that the attendees must complete PRIOR to the course. This course is also usually limited to a finite number of attendees, since the course requires "patrol" style learning. Check the Council calendar, and make sure any potential PT is aware that EDGE is expected. Craig

I went with the green trained strip on the poly/wool shirt. Red Trained strips are for Cub Scouters and Cub Scouts. Agreed that the POR patch should follow the ODL placement.

Wow. congratulations on being asked to be a staffer! great job. Now all you have to do is make sure you get your ticket done in time.

Ahhh.. "Camp Blankets." nice to put a name to it. It certainly was functional. The one I saw definitely had a "South western USA" sort of coloration to it, possibly with some Mexican influences? The guy wearing it was from Las Vegas, and Philmont in June was about as chilly to me as September is here in NH. So I was in short sleeves, but some folks from the desert, and the South Texans' were all bundled up in their camp blankets and jac-shirts. Man, I can't wait to get back out to Philmont... but I digress. Patch blankets are some of the best tradition Scouting has, and I am glad to see the concept is still alive and kicking. Craig

I am also of the mind the old school patch blanket is the way to go. I am "collecting" my own memories - not a patch collection. I've even been using red wool blnakets for mine, so they are functional at camp outs, camp, etc. I saw a real interesting method of collection this summer at Philmont: a gentelman was wearing some sort of blanket with a hole cut out for his head, and this blanket was covered in 50+ years of patches!

I agree the "participant" necker can be worn even after receiving beads. I was truely fortunate enough to be presented my necker and beads which were purchased from Gilwell in England. So... I do not intend to ever put that necker in harms way! I'll wear the plaid one if working or performing something that could damage the tan necker.

TLT (Troop Leadership Training) has officially replaced JLT (Junior Leadership Training.) TLT is an appropriate time/place for the PLC to set their expectations of these POR's. There is a fine line, however. I have witnessed a PLC attempt to require minimum service metrics along with their POR descriptions. For example, the youth wanted to require the Troop Scribe attend 80% of the troop meetings, and produce at least 6 newsletters during the year. The adult leadership saw no harm in this practice. As a Commissioner I needed to remind the SM that hard metrics are never a good idea, and there is no place for them. What if the Scribe in the afore mentioned example was the finest author in the land, and all the minutes he did take were well written, concise and to the point, but he had to assist in the family business because of a sick parent, thusly only making 60% of the meetings? What if this scout had the forethought to line up a proxy scribe to take the raw notes, and he would type them later? Obviously this is a "perfect world scenario," but I hope it makes my point: even though the youth was good at his job, if he didn't make the "80% rule," he would technically be in breach, and therefore his advancement be in jeapordy. Luckily, the SM did finally see the point, and understands that hard metrics and hard "contracts" are not the way, and he was able to guide the PLC into seeing this as well. I think for the most part the posters to this topic actually get it. This spun thread was originally regarding a "contract" that was designed to halt advancement.

Hear Hear! POR contracts are precisely an admission by a SM that he or she has not read or understands the Scout Master Handbook. Often when a kid is slammed at a BOR due to poor performance in his POR the SM pulls out his "signed" "contract." If you think you are such a great Legal-Eagle, then you understand a contract always has two sides, and these "POR" contracts rarely if ever place any responsibility on the shoulders of the SM to do his/her job and mentor/counsel/guide the youth. POR Contracts are complete and total hog wash. Craig

I have seen several responses to this issue that essentially say "if the boy did not effectively serve in his POR then he should not advance." The adult leaders must not allow a youth to simply get stuck in the mud, and let him drown during his tenure in the POR. I have seen time and time again a kid not performing well, and the SM or ASM's just let him drown until his BOR, effectively sand bagging the kid at the last minute. Our jobs as adult leaders is the help the kid become successful! If we see poor job performance it is our DUTY to counsel, mentor, and guide tha youth into becoming an effective leader. Let the kid fail, then assist him and get him back on his feet. Do this multiple times over the course of the POR if neccessary. I prefer to see a kid marginally improve during his 6 months as scribe versus a superstar who knocks it out of the park on the first day. To watch the kid fail over 6 months, and do nothing - SHAME ON ANY ADULT LEADER! We can not in good conscience with hold a kid from advancing if WE do not do our jobs. Heck - the youth might not even know he's doing a bad job, unless he gets some counsel from his SM and ASM. Craig

As usual, Beavah has brought up some very good points. The point that he mentioned regarding the possible Lawyer serving as a MBC is so very on point. Let's examine that situation: a prominent attorney serving as a MBC - It's absolutely true I would not wish to send that attorney a bunch of "immature ten year olds." But what about that 1 in 1,000 kid who is mature enough and intellectually able to understand that Law MB? The national policy is there to allow that kid to take the MB. And chances are that kid would excel in the badge. The issue at hand here, is not setting blanket policy. No Troop should have any policies - the National council has all ready set the policy. The issue here is Scoutmasters who have not applied any common sense. You must use common sense while you counsel the Scout, when the Scout approaches to take such-and-such merit badge. We are here to ensure the Boys succeed. This also brings up the point of "mass merit badge classes." It's a bad idea to send 10 kids to take a MB together. That's not the point. The point is to get the kids excited about vocational and avocational concepts. To send 10 kids through a MB is simply a bunch of adults running a Merit Badge factory, and presumably an Eagle Scout factory.

As a Unit Commissioner, I am in uniform a lot, including commissioners meetings, Round Tables, and the monthly visits for my four units. So, I am in uniform a lot. This past winter I too started to reduce the "bling" on the uniform - including removing my 6" NESA patch from the red jac-shirt. Why? Well, since I would change into uniform at work, and make the occaisonal stop at the market for bread/milk/what ever, I started to feel a little showey. Now with a reduced-to-the minimum uniform and jacket, I feel the unit leaders that I serve are less likely to be overwhelmed by the insignia and emblems. In my opinion, overwhelming a 23 year old mom who is a brand-new den leader can send the wrong message, where the correct message is "I am from the District, and my job is to help YOU be the best Den Leader you can!" So... I suppose I am now in the "less is more" camp. However - I'm not goign to lie, I did purchase the brand new poly/wool uniform that I have setup as my "District Dinner" uniform, and this baby has everybit of insignia and emblems that I am authorized to wear. There is a time and a place for this kind of thing. Craig

I'm thinking I came across some language about "testing out" of IOLS while reading through a District Training pamphlet. Could be the latest revision, or maybe it was the previous revision. I'll check my district handbooks when I get home. Craig

Sounds like we need a "sticky" post that will remain on the top of the forum so that we can all build the list.

ScoutBox: did you happen to use any of the "extras" that people on the forum suggested? Was there anything else that you would now add to the "list" of stuff to bring? Thanks Craig

These $2000 - $3000 contingent fees - these are for all the people? or did each individual attendee pay these fees? I apologize if this is a "stupid" question. I just have never looked into actually attending Jambo. craig

Let's not forget that most of the insurance coverage we are afforded as registered members is "Excess" or "Secondary" insurance. So... if you roll your car over while transporting scouts while on a scouting adventure, and people are hurt and damage is done to your or another parties vehicles... the vehicles OWNER'S insurance policy will be tapped first, then if claims are over and above the owners' policy limits... then and only then will the BSA policy kick in. Same goes for the accident and health insurance. It's secondary to the injured person's personal health insurance. So... if a scouter did not carry any insurance, then the BSA health insurance would cover immediately. All vehicles are required to have automotive insurance no matter what, so a vehicular claim will ALWAYS be on a secondary basis. Craig

What if we took a scout shirt, scout pants, scout belt, necker, and hat - cut them down the centerline, and sewed them onto a pair of jeans, a concert tee shirt, a purple belt, a necktie, and some other hat? So if you view that person in profile from the left they are in "civies" and from the right they appear to be in uniform. The scout or scouter would be in 1/2 a uniform, wouldn't they? According to several above posters, who only "require" a scout shirt because 1/2 a uniform is acceptable, so wouldn't this approach.

Dew: Whomever you spoke to at your Council Service Center when looking for a MBC needs a strict talking-to. The Pros are here to serve the volunteers, not the other way around. Did you try your District Advancement chair? If you don't have a District Advancement chair, the responsibility falls to the District Committee Chair. The "District" is just a collection of scouters who's job is to support the units. I think the problem is that Unit Scouters are not vocal enough, and do not demand the District support their (the unit's) needs. This is a prime example of where an active Commissioner can help. The Commissioner won't get you the list, but the Commissioner will bring the need front and center to the District. The Council list of MBC's will always be very very much out of date. Now with the new YPT requirements of adult leaders, the Council list will become even less useful. Our only hope is that District Scouters do their job.(This message has been edited by ctbailey)

"Eagle Week" and "Eagle Trail" and other types of Merit Badge Mills completely, totally, 100% miss the point. The point is not to make it easy to earn the merit badges, the point is to offer the opportunity for boys to earn merit badges. Not every Scout will earn Eagle Rank. Isn't the point to build better citizens for America, and provide leadership training? If we coddle these Scouts to the point where all they need to do is 'show up' to Eagle Week - and you're guaranteed the bulk of your Eagle required MB's - we are creating a false sense of leadership training. I am sure that some "Merit Badge Classes" actually do require the boys to do some on their own. I find the whole concept of mass MB training very suspect, though.

I was once the Advancement Chair in our district, and I spent a couple months cleaning out the district list of MBC's, and finally had a good product, where youth could immediately find a counselor anywhere in the district for many, many badges. It was a herculean effort, however, to do this. It actually burnt me out, and I needed to take a break. The following chairs did not have the time or inclination to keep the list managed, so it has since fallen back into disrepair. I think the falling into disrepair was a symptom, not the reason why such a huge amount of "troop" counselors exist in our district. I've asked unit leaders what their position is, and a common answer is they do not trust the MBC's enough with their boys, hence the move to "troop" counselors. Is this showing a larger symptom?

I love the concept of "the Troop XXXX Merit Badge Counselor." Where and when did people get the notion that MBC's could only be attached to a troop? The whole concept of MBC's is that the boys, with a buddy, reach out and contact adults who are not familiar to them. This was to teach the youth how to properly conduct themselves with adults. If all the MBC's they ever see are ASM's or committee members of their own troop, they are missing some of the best learning experiences.

I saw this post from another uniform post, and it got me a little bothered. If a veteran scouter is not wearing an OA flap, should you assume that scouter is not involved? If I understand correctly, in order to become an adult member of the OA, you must be asked. One can not simply "join" the OA. If a scouter isn't wearing the flap, that doesn't automatically make that scouter any less involved. To assume that only the "most involved" scouters are also OA only continues the concept that the OA is elitist.

Hey Roadkill: try this link: http://www.lfcwoodbadge.org/eq_list.pdf(This message has been edited by ctbailey)

Bring a Digital Camera and the wires/card reader needed to transfer pics to a PC Bring some office supplies Bring some leather scraps Good luck Craig

isn't there all ready a "Cradle of Liberty" Council somewhere in PA?