more adding to the Eagle application requirements VENT

[packsaddle]

Jet526, You know, I did read that and I guess I need my wife to start nagging me about it because I completely forgot the details. But you're right, the boy should not be involved in delivering letters or forms from references to the DAC or council. Thanks for the reminder.

 

I'll defend CA a bit. In this district it has been common for the rules to change suddenly, without warning, and for no apparent reason (not, thankfully, to include letters though). I can understand how a leader can be unaware of at least some of the rules, some of the time.

[Beavah]

In this district it has been common for the rules to change suddenly, without warning, and for no apparent reason (not, thankfully, to include letters though). I can understand how a leader can be unaware of at least some of the rules, some of the time.

 

Not just in that district, eh? This happens all over.

 

Every new DAC seems to want to rework da process. Or else someone goes off to one of the regional training sessions and comes back and reorganizes everything.

 

I try to coach such folks that the best service to units is stability in the process. The average SM only has a couple Eagles a year. If the process gets tweaked every year, it pretty much seems like it's random, eh? Almost every new Eagle has to do somethin' different.

 

I think districts should lock it in like the Scout Handbook. Come up with a relatively straightforward system, not too bureaucratic, then no changes for ten years no matter who works the committee or what comes out of Irving this week.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

In this district it has been common for the rules to change suddenly, without warning, and for no apparent reason (not, thankfully, to include letters though). I can understand how a leader can be unaware of at least some of the rules, some of the time.

 

Not just in that district, eh? This happens all over.

 

And hence the problem. If the DAC's stuck to the requirements, there wouldn't be this problem. There is too much open to interpretation. If National would spell out EXACTLY what was required, a lot of these problems would go away!

[John-in-KC]

And hence the problem. If the DAC's stuck to the requirements, there wouldn't be this problem. There is too much open to interpretation. If National would spell out EXACTLY what was required, a lot of these problems would go away!

 

Be careful of what you ask for. You might get it.

 

That's how we got the current definition of "Active."

[Beavah]

If National would spell out EXACTLY what was required, a lot of these problems would go away!

 

Yah, sure, because most of da volunteers and kids would go away.

 

I've never quite understood da rush to put everything in the hands of the central government. When has any central government demonstrated high competence in running everyone's local affairs?

 

John-in-KC is right, eh? If yeh nationalize the education system, we'd get school requirements set to da least common denominator. Somethin' like Detroit or Washington DC. public schools. If yeh truly nationalize the implementation of scouting, you get da least common denominator as well. And Irving has hardly been "stable" in its interpretation of da process or requirements, eh?

 

Here in the U.S., citizenship is based on multiple levels of jurisdiction, which check and balance each other, eh? Probably best when yeh have national goals but local enactment.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[gcnphkr]

We are fortunate. Our district has a Life to Eagle class at Roundtable about twice a year. The procedures don't change much but the unit leaders do.

[evmori]

We got active because National never defined active! Hence the cheesy definition!

[Twocubdad]

You beat me to it Ed. We DON'T have a national definition of active. We've handbooks saying one thing, the bylaws something else and a stupid Internet FAQ related to merit badge counselors going in a completely different direction.

 

On the other hand, we DO have a clear advancement policy that says a Scout shall not be penalized by the failure of his references to submit the reference.

 

DAC's can tweak stuff all they like. Mail the app to the new guy versus the old guy like you to bring them to Roundtable. Whatever. But when you have it in front of you in black and white.....

[John-in-KC]

Have you guys read p 24 of ACP&P? The text box?

 

We have a definition in a program policy document.

 

Text box, lower left corner:

A Scou will be considered "active" in his unit if he is

1. Registered in his unit (registration fees are current)

2. Not dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons

3. Engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (informed of unit activities through Scoutmaster conference or personal contact, etc.)

 

That wasn't in the pre-2007 editions of ACP&P. We whined, and we got something rammed down our throats.

 

So I say again: Be careful of what you ask the National Council for. You just might get it

 

[evmori]

John,

 

That definition isn't

 

Registered = Active

 

Granted, it's not much more but it is better.

[BrentAllen]

It sure looks like regsitered = active to me. What does the Scout have to do in that definition? Nothing. I agree with John and Beavah - be very careful what you ask for, because it will be constructed to address the lowest common denominator.

[FScouter]

Y'all are confused about this "active" thing being about what the Scout does or doesn't do. Rather, this is aimed at adult leaders that don't do their jobs instilling the values of the program in Scouts.

 

"We got active because National never defined active!"

 

No, you got it because you had 3,000 units make up 3,000 different definitions in 3,000 different sets of "bylaws" that failed to address the real problem of adults failing in their mission. We don't fulfill our mission by making up rules to filter out the "unworthy" boys.

[John-in-KC]

My point is not registered=active. It's a convenient example.

 

My point is, as Brent and Beavah have both said: It appears the National Council, when asked for guidance beyond what is in

- the Rules, Regulations, and/or Bylaws of the BSA OR

- existing program documents ...

has a mindset of taking the path of least resistance, and the path of lowering the risk to the BSA the Corporation.

 

I see that in the YP training online, where the example is non-Scouter parents can see their own sons' Ordeal ceremony (never mind they haven't invested the sweat equity to be invited into the Order themselves). National H&S played the "no secret societies" card on that one.

 

I see that mindset in the clause in ACP&P that units have no right of appeal.

 

I see it in the current Scouting Magazine, where many SM/ASM wrote in on how they prioritize Scouting/athletics/extra-curricular elements in academics ... in favor of the athletics or the school activity.

 

We need to be careful of the change we ask for from the National Council and the various committees of volunteers and Professionals. Ed will get his uniform and inflexible policy he wants, I guarantee it ... and it will water down the program to the point where it's not worth having.

 

Yes, I don't like how Rick uses his Kudu horn to hijack every thread ... but he is making a point. BTW, look at all the big non-profit corporations out there ... including the Red Cross, AHA, and on and on. You'll see similar traits of risk avoidance in all of them. Beavah and nldScout sorry to say this, Counselor/Your Honor, but the risk management attorneys are in charge of the program.

 

My thoughts(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[BrentAllen]

Sorry, FScouter, but I have to disagree. We had 3,000 units trying to deal with the PARENTS who wanted their little Johnny to get the award without the work. From what I've read on this forum, anytime the parents appeal a Troop embracing the values, the Troop loses. I would argue that National has hurt the Troops and adults who try to teach the values. I don't know of anyone who would agree with this definition of "active." It certainly isn't the definition we live with and teach our Scouts. I don't what "value" National is trying to instill with this ridiculous definition. It is just teaching boys that they can skip out on the program but if they pitch a big enough of a fit, they can still get the prize.

[evmori]

No, you got it because you had 3,000 units make up 3,000 different definitions in 3,000 different sets of "bylaws" that failed to address the real problem of adults failing in their mission. We don't fulfill our mission by making up rules to filter out the "unworthy" boys.

 

Same old line, FScouter. And again, way off the mark.