Making Eagle in a crew..

[emb021]

"But can the ACP&P really be wrong? Or is it right by definition?"

 

I just gave you an example of how the ACP&P is wrong, something I've pointed out to the guys in the National Venturin Division, who agreed its wrong. Why it hasn't been fixed is beyond me.

 

The Outdoor Bronze IS 'half of Ranger', because that's how the two awards were set up. You complete half the work needed for Ranger (4 of the 8 core, and 2 of the 4 needed electives) and you get the Outdoor Bronze.

 

The Sea Scout Bronze is most definetly NOT 'half of Quartermaster'. The Sea Scout advancement program has four ranks: Apprentice, Ordinary, Able, and Quartermaster. Each of these awards have their own set of requirements (tho each cover the same general groups). The Sea Scout Bronze has the same requirements as Ordinary, and this was done MAINLY to allow a path for Sea Scouts to earn Venturing Gold then Venturing Silver, tho I do know that ANY Venturer can earn Sea Scout Bronze (they just don't get Ordinary). Thus getting Sea Scout Bronze (ie Ordinary) is HALF WAY to Quartermaster, saying its 'half of QM' is just nonsense.

[Bob White]

Too funny Oak Tree.

 

I explained there were errors in some BSA literature do to miscommunications between divisions several posts ago in this thread. I also explained the overlap between the program and how only Sea Scout registered youth could earn Sea Scout ranks. But I am glad that emb021 was able to explain it in a way you could understand.

[Oak Tree]

emb021, yeah, I got your example and I agree with you. I guess it's more of a philosophical question - what authority gets to declare that the ACP&P is incorrect?

 

John-in-KC proposes the most reasonable response - that the rest of the literature provides a check, and you go with the preponderance of the evidence. "Scripture checks scripture" is a reasonable analogy - although that mostly deals with interpretation. It would be rare for many Christians to say "this verse is wrong because it's contradicted elsewhere in scripture." Whereas it's completely fine for us to say "this sentence is wrong in the ACP&P."

 

And Bob - thanks so much for the upbeat and encouraging tone you set on these forums. Makes me look forward every day to social interactions with my fellow Scouters as we all do our best.

[Bob White]

Private message to Oak Tree.

[emb021]

"I guess it's more of a philosophical question - what authority gets to declare that the ACP&P is incorrect? "

 

I don't have an answer for you on that.

 

Frankly, I think 90% of the silly conflicts that come up in scouting (both in person and on-line) regarding policies/procedures could have been avoided had National done a little better editing job on many of their documents (ACP&P, Insignia Guide, Leadership Training booklet, etc. etc.). It would end the garbage 'show me where it says I have to do X' or 'show me where it says I can't do X'.

 

And there are times when I wish the documents would make it clear that was is being stated are suggestions/recommendations and that people are free to do things a little differently. (that would get rid of the 'because it doesn't say you can do X, you aren't allowed to do X' nonsense).

 

 

[Bob White]

Clear communications requires responsibility on the parts of both the sender and reciever.

 

Just as there really is no such thing as "one size fits all", not every rule, policy, or procedure will be understood by ever person who read it no matter how it is written.

 

I agree that there are typos in some of the literature and even some information errors, most are minor or can be resolved simply by comparing the information to other resources. Many of these erros result from the fact that communication within any corporatioon the size of the BSA is a constant challenge. As you are aware program Divisions within the BSA do not always play well together.

 

The bigger problem seems to be misunderstandings caused by the background, personality, preconceptions, or personal habits of the reader. We as volunteers come from a very wide variety of backgrounds and not everyone is going to get the same meaning out of the same phrase and will often go for what they want the meaning to be rather than take the time to determine what the message actually is. Think of it as empathetic reading.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Argyle]

Being a Sea Scout Skipper, we've only picked up Life Scouts, who have basically stopped participating with their troops. We're not affiliated with any specific troops, so we get Life Scouts from many different communities. So, as far as Boy Scout advancement, we're the "Closers". Instead of the Quality Unit measurements, our ship pursues the National Standard Sea Scout Ship goals. Getting youth to the Ordinary rank is part of the unit goals. But, we do try to help those Life Scouts who want to complete Eagle to complete that milestone.

 

So, the process is pretty cut and dry. We have a Skipper's Conference, the project gets signed by the benefactor, Skipper, Ship's Committee, and the District Advancement Committee. These scouts have had held positions in both the Ship and had completed this requirement while in their troops.

 

If and when the situation arises where we have 1st Class and Star Scouts wanting to continue Boy Scout advancement, the process would be a bit of a hybrid. The por's will be Sea Scout positions, bor's will be with the ship's committee, and the conference will be a Skipper's Conference. Seems pretty simple.

 

 

[Argyle]

The District Advancement Committee is a story in itself. The District had an Eagle Committee, three long, long, long-time Scouters. Our Sea Scout submitted his project proposal. This committee wasn't aware that a Sea Scout could make Eagle in a Ship. They weren't aware there was a Ship in the district. Being the only ship in the council, we have youth members from all the surrounding districts, but this committee stated that we couldn't go through their district because he lived in a city outside their district. The committee stated that the Ship's officers couldn't be leaders in the ship also because we all lived in other communities. The Advancement Committee also had a locally created document describing their requirements for the Eagle Projects. They demanded the Scouts include some 11 Leadership characteristics and how they would apply them in their project. I understand the 11 Characteristics was from an obsolete JLT Course that has not been taught to scouts in years. They stated that Scouts couldn't use certain tools and a lot of other blather, needless to say, they crushed this kid like a bug.

 

My understanding of the Eagle process is that the requirements are plainly stated in the Boy Scout Handbook, the Eagle Application, The Project worksheet, and the Advancement Committee Policy Manual. These fellas acted like self appointed guardians of the Eagle, do it their way, or be crushed. Using the four documents above, there would be one standard to earn the Eagle rank, uniform, across the country.

 

I just wonder how many of these rogue requirements are laid on across the countries by power abusing committees and boards?

[Stosh]

One of the problems with making up the rules as one goes along is trying to remember them all. If this is the treatment the boy is getting, it's time to get the SE involved.

 

I have had a number of boys Eagle in my Crew, but I always had them retain their membership in a troop to avoid situations like this. I haven't had a boy yet want to Eagle that hasn't stayed with this troop. I do believe there is something about a boy needing to be a FC scout before they join a Crew/Ship in order to go on for Eagle. If this be the case, we have found it easier for the boy to remain dual registered with his troop and work on his Eagle through the Boy Scout program. We don't do much for our Eagles except help with manpower on his project and hold his feet to the fire to keep him on track.

 

Stosh