National *finally* defines "Scout Spirit" and "active"!
Fred Goodwin, CMA
Questions
Question: Rank advancement requires a Scout to demonstrate Scout
spirit. How is Scout spirit defined and determined?
Answer: Scout spirit applies to how a Scout lives and conducts his
daily life. He shows Scout spirit by being a role model to his peers,
living by the Scout Oath and Law. The concept of Scout spirit is not
based on how many Scouting events or outings a Scout attends, but
rather by how he helps bring out the best in others as a reflection of
his own character and attitude in his daily life.
Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active
in your troop and patrol" defined?
Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:
1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).
2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.
3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis
(Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit
activities, through personal contact, and so on).
The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the
Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any
certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders
must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned
leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout
from that position.
Stephen Henning
This is the way councils have been advised to handle appeals for years.
Glad to see it in now available to units.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://rhodyman.net
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
I thought that was what you had been saying all along! 8-)
Hugh
Robert Haar
Stephen has been very consistent in his comments on this topic. The problem
up to now is that there has been no good response when someone says "Show it
to me in writing form National" Now we have a published authoritative
document to fall back on.
Stan
> "Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rank Advancement and the Board of Review Process: Frequently Asked
> > Questions
>
> > in your troop and patrol" defined?
>
> > Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:
>
> > 1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).
> > 2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.
> > 3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis
> > (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit
> > activities, through personal contact, and so on).
>
> This is the way councils have been advised to handle appeals for years.
> Glad to see it in now available to units.
While this defines the "Be active" requirement, it does not define
"actively" in the Serve Actively in a Position of Responsibility
requirement. That is where most of the problems occur (i.e., although
the Scout wears the job patch, he isn't even trying to do the job).
Stephen Henning
> > Stephen Henning <pig...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> This is the way councils have been advised to handle appeals for years.
> >> Glad to see it in now available to units.
> >
Up until now the writing from National was to councils on how to handle
appeals. Being on council staff, I was privy to it. Now everyone is.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to scou...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
I see two sig points, and I believed them all along.
1. A scouts contribution may be measured by what he does outside the
troop. The All-State football player who is a Scout probably recruits
more boys by accident than others do on ourpose. But there is no
proviso for him bypassing any rank requirements.
2. We have known all along that meeting and campout attendance could
not be used as performance quotas. But about every two weeks someone
would post that is what their troop does. Perhaps we have put that
baby to bed.
I think the pub puts in wriring what common sense has told most of us
all along.
Hugh
Stephen Henning
> > "Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rank Advancement and the Board of Review Process: Frequently Asked
> > > Questions
> >
> > > Question: For the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks, how is "Be active
> > > in your troop and patrol" defined?
> >
> > > Answer: A Scout is considered to be active in his unit if:
> >
> > > 1. He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).
> > > 2. He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.
> > > 3. He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis
> > > (Scoutmaster conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit
> > > activities, through personal contact, and so on).
>
> While this defines the "Be active" requirement, it does not define
> "actively" in the Serve Actively in a Position of Responsibility
> requirement. That is where most of the problems occur (i.e., although
> the Scout wears the job patch, he isn't even trying to do the job).
That is described in the next paragraph:
>> The Scout is not required to attend any
>> certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders
>> must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned
>> leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout
>> from that position.
In other words, you can NOT leave a Scout in a leadership position and
then claim he wasn't actively serving. The troop leadership is
responsible to ensure that the Scout is "fulfilling the obligations of
his assigned leadership position" or must "remove the Scout from the
position" if they don't want to to give him credit for serving in the
position.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to scou...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
erma...@gmail.com
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USAhttp://rhodyman.net
" scrivi in ITALIANO "
Stephen Henning
> We have known all along that meeting and campout attendance could
> not be used as performance quotas. But about every two weeks someone
> would post that is what their troop does. Perhaps we have put that
> baby to bed.
>
> I think the pub puts in wriring what common sense has told most of us
> all along.
I wish you were right Hugh, but there are people out there that think
that Scouting is their program and they will do what they want with it.
Unfortunately, one of my jobs as a professional was to deal with them
every time a mother or father complained. These leaders never won.
They either followed BSA policy or were refunded their registration
money. You are right, that at least it is much easier for leaders to
follow BSA policy since it is being spelled out much better now.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to scou...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Ea...@roadrunner.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> We have known all along that meeting and campout attendance could
>> not be used as performance quotas. But about every two weeks someone
>> would post that is what their troop does. Perhaps we have put that
>> baby to bed.
>>
>> I think the pub puts in wriring what common sense has told most of us
>> all along.
>
>I wish you were right Hugh, but there are people out there that think
>that Scouting is their program and they will do what they want with it.
>Unfortunately, one of my jobs as a professional was to deal with them
>every time a mother or father complained. These leaders never won.
>They either followed BSA policy or were refunded their registration
>money. You are right, that at least it is much easier for leaders to
>follow BSA policy since it is being spelled out much better now.
My feeling in this area is that the leaders have not been sufficiently
indictrinated. I think they go by the book except retesting for MBs
and almost every troop has done that since before 1970 when my oldest
son graduated from Webelos.
We had a young, Mormon come before our Board about 10 days ago. He had
not fully implemented the suggestions I made for him to "pump up" his
project. His Application was approved by the Scout Office but not
signed and there were no troop sigs on it.
The Mormon troop here is very small - it's been several years since
they had an Eagle. The kid was really sharp - his dad brought him and
is headed back to Iraq in a month - the leader has been in the
position for about 10 days.
We passed him. But we asked him and the leader to stay while we went
over what the program was about and how Eagle candidates should be
prepared in the future. We directed them to the Scout office to
complete the paper work and for the leader to get involved in a
training program. One other candidate that night did not have one of
the sigs. Yesteerday I called the Scout Office, the applications were
complete and sat, so I went down and signed them - I never sign until
they are complete even though the candidate passes.
I'm satisfied the candidate will uphold the tradition of an Eagle
Scout but I don't like weak Eagle Service Projects. I made the young
man responsible for instructing the young Scouts on the proper
procedure for advancement, especially to Eagle.
Everything considered I believe the best interests of BSA were served.
Naturally I will attend his CoH.
Hugh
earthlink
"The unit leaders are responsible for maintaining contact with the
Scout on a regular basis. The Scout is not required to attend any
certain percentage of activities or outings. However, unit leaders
must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned
leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout
from that position."
A scout is...trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous....
So we have a young man, who has worked his way through scouting and now does
not have the courtesy to stay in contact with the troop and BSA is telling
us that the leadership is required to initiate and maintain contact...are we
now begging scouts to make Eagle?
"Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180841136.9...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Mr. A
"earthlink" <adair...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9Kbi.16423$296....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sometimes, the people running National office simply do not have a clue as
to what the rank and file (the people paying the bills) think nor what used
to be called "common sense."
Mr. A
Fred Goodwin, CMA
> "earthlink" <adair_st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I9Kbi.16423$296....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > So we have a young man, who has worked his way through scouting
> > and now does not have the courtesy to stay in contact with the
> > troop and BSA is telling us that the leadership is required to
> > initiate and maintain contact
I'm not sure where you got the impression this new guidance results
from a problem with boys not keeping in touch with their units.
> Sometimes, the people running National office simply do not have
> a clue as to what the rank and file (the people paying the bills)
> think nor what used to be called "common sense."
Maybe if the "rank and file" used some "common sense", simply followed
the advancement requirements as written rather than adding arbitrary
attendance requirements, this guidance from National wouldn't be
needed.
Mr. A
Amazing, Fred, that you actually think that the point of view of National as
defined in this "guidance" is common sense. If you asked 1000 random people
on the street who are not in Scouting what the words "active participation"
mean, you would get some real common sense. I have no problem following the
advancement requirements. I just have a problem spoon feeding boys and then
patting them on the back for their "accomplishments."
Sorry,
Mr. A
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> Amazing, Fred, that you actually think that the point of view of
> National as defined in this "guidance" is common sense. If you
> asked 1000 random people on the street who are not in Scouting what
> the words "active participation" mean, you would get some real
> common sense. I have no problem following the advancement
> requirements. I just have a problem spoon feeding boys and then
> patting them on the back for their "accomplishments."
Oddly enough, BSA advancement requirements aren't set by "random
people on the street". And its a good thing: some of those "random
people" think Cub Scouts earn merit badges; some of them even think
Boy Scouts sell cookies.
But if you want to seek affirmation of your opinion from those "random
people", you go right ahead -- just don't hold a Scout back on his
advancement because of an interpretation from those "random
people" . . .
Mr. A
on the street" should set the advancements requirements of the BSA? When I
only asserted that the National folks don't know the meaning of the words
"active participation" as evidenced by my belief that 1000 randon people
would define those words differently from the BSA? Can you please stick to
the arguement? If not, I will bow out of the discussion. Hope you are
having a splendid day. I know I am!
Mr. A
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> Once again, amazing, Fred. You actually assert that I
> think "randon people on the street" should set the advancements
> requirements of the BSA? When I only asserted that the National
> folks don't know the meaning of the words "active participation"
> as evidenced by my belief that 1000 randon people would define
> those words differently from the BSA? Can you please stick to
> the arguement? If not, I will bow out of the discussion. Hope
> you are having a splendid day. I know I am!
You claimed random people would interpret BSA advancement policies a
certain way; but the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how random
people interpret a BSA advancement policy, when BSA has itself
published an interpretation.
You may not like or agree with the interpretation, and you may think
random people would see things differently, but that really doesn't
matter, does it?
You can choose to follow the published policy or ignore it.
YiS
Stan
.
>
> You may not like or agree with the interpretation, and you may think
> random people would see things differently, but that really doesn't
> matter, does it?
>
> You can choose to follow the published policy or ignore it.
What I do know is that there's still confusion between the "be active"
requirement and the totally separate "serve actively" requirement.
Okay, I can accept that a boy who's paid up and a member in good
standing is an "active member", but I still don't see where that
extends to a boy's wearing a job patch as fully defining "serve
actively".
I chaired a Life Board of Review a few days ago, and one of the things
I did in preparation for it was to confirm with the Scoutmaster that
the boy had in fact "served ACTIVELY" in his position of
responsibility. Now in reality, if he hadn't served ACTIVELY, as a
reasonable person would define it to be, there would've already been
discussions with him, he wouldn't have received the SM's
recommendation for advancement, and the standing members of our Troop
Advancement Committee would've been in the loop regarding his
readiness for advancement.
If he asked for a BofR anyway, and pulls out the item that started
this thread, I would've told him (1) that's only about the 6 month
seniority requirement and not the Position of Responsibility
requirement, and (2) instead of preparing an appeal, how about,
instead, working to bring your job performance up to the "serve
actively" level that we're trying to get you to.
Mr. A
random people "would interpret BSA advancement policies a certain way." I
said that random people would interpret the words "active participation" a
certain way. If the BSA wants to promote boys to Eagle who do not even show
up for meetings or troop activities, then at least they should have the
balls to say so. Don't use the phrase "active participation" to mean the
same thing as "non-active membership." Sounds Orwellian to me, how about
you?
It is a shame that National keeps dumbing down the requirements for Eagle.
I know many Eagle Scouts who are disgusted by the direction National is
going and are insulted by how easily some troops simply "give away badges."
My little corner of the Universe is doing just fine, though. Here in the
deep South, we just keep our standards high. You can call it "ignoring
policy" or you can think outside robotic brainwashing and call it "civil
disobedience."
In all this discussion with you, I want you to know that I have admired your
devotion to the program and your frequent postings of news articles
concerning Scouting. I know that your intentions are in the right place,
but I happen to disagree with you that this new "guidance" makes sense or
can have any good outcome for the present members (the boys) or the future
of the Scouting program.
Mr. A
Stan
>
> It is a shame that National keeps dumbing down the requirements for Eagle.
> I know many Eagle Scouts who are disgusted by the direction National is
> going and are insulted by how easily some troops simply "give away badges."
This is a big sore point with me. When I first started out in
Scouting, the "word" that I got was that having in-Troop MB counselors
for Eagle-required badges was highly discouraged. Then within the
last 5 years, I saw how this has changed-
1. One was the increase in "Trail to Eagle" camps, where some of the
"intellectual" Eagle required badges are available. There's no issue
that the boys cover the material, and often learn more about the topic
than they would getting the badge the traditional way, but it requires
virtually no initiative by the boys; all that's needed is for the Bank
of Daddy and/or Mommy to write a check.
2. In articles I posted two years ago, I already documented what we
went through when we told a boy going to Jamboree that the only Eagle-
required MB badges we'd record were those signed by the counselors we
named on the blue cards we gave him.
3. I had a boy see me for Cit/Nation about a year ago, his mother was
his "buddy", and in casual conversation I found out that the only
reason her son came to me what that "their Troop's" Cit/Nation
counselor was unavailable. As I tried to understand what she meant,
what it sounded like was that some parents from "their Troop" sign up
as Eagle MB counselors and actually run Eagle MB classes; again, what
initiative does it take on the part of the boy?
4. While our Council Advancement Committee doesn't want a boy to
receive more than 3 MB's from one counselor, they make no distinction
between counselors active in the boy's Troop and "outside"
counselors. At a BofR, I asked a boy about the two, and without
hesitation he answered that in-Troop was clearly easier, and the
reason was that it was just easier to work with people he knew.
Basically, the message that I'm getting is that there is definitely a
move away from the concept of "showing initiative" being a part of
earning non-camp Eagle-required badges, and that spoon-feeding such
MB's to the boys is now acceptable.
Fred Goodwin, CMA
Thanx for the kind words.
All I'm saying is that we now have guidance from National re: "active"
and "Scout Spirit", two issues that have caused units, Scouts and
Scouters much grief over the years.
Why National finally decided to publicly post the guidance (that
Councils have been privy to all along) is an open question. But the
real issue for me is this: the guidance is now available for all to
see. Whether units choose to follow or ignore the guidance is up to
them.
YiS
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> What I do know is that there's still confusion between the "be
> active" requirement and the totally separate "serve actively"
> requirement.
I think the FAQ is pretty clear that is also applies to the POR
requirement; see below.
> Okay, I can accept that a boy who's paid up and a member in good
> standing is an "active member", but I still don't see where that
> extends to a boy's wearing a job patch as fully defining "serve
> actively".
The FAQ says:
unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the
obligations of his assigned leadership position.
If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from
that position.
The published "obligations of the assigned leadership position" (i.e.,
the junior leadership job descriptions) do not include a fixed
attendance requirement, either for troop meetings or for campouts.
Adding such requirements would constitute a violation of BSA
advancement policy, per this FAQ.
> If he asked for a BofR anyway, and pulls out the item that started
> this thread, I would've told him (1) that's only about the 6 month
> seniority requirement and not the Position of Responsibility
> requirement, and
I think you're mistaken, but again, if you want to ignore what's
written in the FAQ, you go right ahead. But if you deny a Scout's
advancement based on adding an attendance requirement to the "serve
actively in a POR" requirement, and if the Scout appeals, you already
know the Scout will win. So why continue to violate the policy?
> (2) instead of preparing an appeal, how about, instead, working
> to bring your job performance up to the "serve actively" level
> that we're trying to get you to.
Exactly -- and its the unit leadership's role to remove the boy if he
doesn't do that -- but failing an arbitrary attendance requirement and
withholding advancement as a result is not the proper way to go about
it.
Working through any issues the boy may have is the proper way to do
it, and that's really the SM's job, isn't it? That's entirely
consistent with the FAQ, per the excerpt I posted above.
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> This is a big sore point with me. When I first started out in
> Scouting, the "word" that I got was that having in-Troop MB
> counselors for Eagle-required badges was highly
> discouraged. Then within the last 5 years, I saw how this has
> changed-
I'm not sure who gave you the "word" that in-troop Eagle MBCs were
discouraged; the official "word" is the Advancement Committee Guide:
Policies and Procedures. There are no prohibitions listed against in-
troop MBCs, for Eagle MBs or otherwise.
Anytime someone gives me the "word" on something like that, I ask for
it in writing. Nine times out of ten, they heard it from someone, who
heard it from someone else, etc. ad nauseam, with no written support
for the "word".
Of course, official policies do change over time, and maybe it was the
case some time ago, but that's not the case today.
> 1. One was the increase in "Trail to Eagle" camps, where some of
> the "intellectual" Eagle required badges are available. There's
> no issue that the boys cover the material, and often learn more
> about the topic than they would getting the badge the traditional
> way, but it requires virtually no initiative by the boys; all
> that's needed is for the Bank of Daddy and/or Mommy to write a
> check.
Its within the SM's prerogative to approve a boy's MBC; if you as SM
don't like such programs, then don't approve them for your boys.
> 2. In articles I posted two years ago, I already documented what
> we went through when we told a boy going to Jamboree that the
> only Eagle-required MB badges we'd record were those signed by
> the counselors we named on the blue cards we gave him.
Again, that's within the SM's authority, but I think it unfortunate
that you would deny a boy such an opportunity.
> 3. I had a boy see me for Cit/Nation about a year ago, his
> mother was his "buddy", and in casual conversation I found out
> that the only reason her son came to me what that "their Troop's"
> Cit/Nation counselor was unavailable. As I tried to understand
> what she meant, what it sounded like was that some parents
> from "their Troop" sign up as Eagle MB counselors and actually
> run Eagle MB classes; again, what initiative does it take on the
> part of the boy?
In some troops, the SM assigns the MBC; in others, the Scout has to
seek out an MBC with the SM's approval. But in every case, the SM has
the authority to accept the MBC or not.
> 4. While our Council Advancement Committee doesn't want a boy to
> receive more than 3 MB's from one counselor,
Again, there is no such limitation in the Advancement Committee
Guidelines. If boys in your council choose to apeal, they would very
likely win. I understand why your Council might want such a policy,
but it really isn't necessary, given the SM's right to approve each
boy's MBC.
And the Eagle application doesn't require that the MBCs be listed,
although it is good due diligence to verify that the MBCs were
properly registered at the time they counseled the boy's MBs.
> Basically, the message that I'm getting is that there is
> definitely a move away from the concept of "showing initiative"
> being a part of earning non-camp Eagle-required badges, and that
> spoon-feeding such MB's to the boys is now acceptable.
My understanding is that the original Eagle requirements required no
project. Do you feel like their Eagle Ranks are devalued compared to
yours? I would hope not, because the boys who earned their Eagles
back in the day, did so under the requirements at the time.
Today's boys are doing the same, at least for those boys who aren't
having to clear artificial hurdles erected by well-intentioned adults.
YiS
Stan
> > (2) instead of preparing an appeal, how about, instead, working
> > to bring your job performance up to the "serve actively" level
> > that we're trying to get you to.
>
> Exactly -- and its the unit leadership's role to remove the boy if he
> doesn't do that -- but failing an arbitrary attendance requirement and
> withholding advancement as a result is not the proper way to go about
> it.
>
> Working through any issues the boy may have is the proper way to do
> it, and that's really the SM's job, isn't it? That's entirely
> consistent with the FAQ, per the excerpt I posted above.
In my posting, I never said anything about an arbitrary attendance
requirement. All I said is that he's expected to do the job that his
Position of Responsibility requires him to do.
Even this "remove him" creates problems. Obviously the boy will need
to be given some number of chances before it's clear he's not doing
the job, so we need to figure that the time from appointment to
removal will be at least 2 months. Then he's given another chance,
and eventually will manage to get 6 months in somehow (4 for Star)
while doing virtually nothing. Also, how does he "requalify" for a
PoR? A related point I posted a while ago is at what point can a boy
claim that he was, in effect, serving in a PoR, even though he hadn't
been formally appointed to the position?
Finally, at what point does Scout Spirit become a legitimate factor?
If upon taking the job, and at remedial Scoutmaster Conferences, the
boy makes it clear that he understands that his job requires him to
attend campouts, and then he just doesn't attend (and giving him the
benefit of the doubt, we'll assume he simply chose to do something
else, and not because of a family commitment or emergency), tell me
why we're not looking at trustworthy, loyal, helpful, and obedient?
Stan
> On Jun 14, 11:12 pm, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> > 1. One was the increase in "Trail to Eagle" camps, where some of
> > the "intellectual" Eagle required badges are available. There's
> > no issue that the boys cover the material, and often learn more
> > about the topic than they would getting the badge the traditional
> > way, but it requires virtually no initiative by the boys; all
> > that's needed is for the Bank of Daddy and/or Mommy to write a
> > check.
>
> Its within the SM's prerogative to approve a boy's MBC; if you as SM
> don't like such programs, then don't approve them for your boys.
As I understand National's policy, which was posted at the time we
were having this discussion two years ago, any MB approved by any
registered MB counselor is valid.
> > 2. In articles I posted two years ago, I already documented what
> > we went through when we told a boy going to Jamboree that the
> > only Eagle-required MB badges we'd record were those signed by
> > the counselors we named on the blue cards we gave him.
>
> Again, that's within the SM's authority, but I think it unfortunate
> that you would deny a boy such an opportunity.
There were over 40 MB's available (I believe) at Jambo; we had no
problem with his earning 39 of them. And in the case of the 40th, we
wanted a blue card signed by the counselor we sent him to. If that
counselor was willing to sign off based on the Jambo yellow sheet,
that was his perrogative.
> > 3. I had a boy see me for Cit/Nation about a year ago, his
> > mother was his "buddy", and in casual conversation I found out
> > that the only reason her son came to me what that "their Troop's"
> > Cit/Nation counselor was unavailable. As I tried to understand
> > what she meant, what it sounded like was that some parents
> > from "their Troop" sign up as Eagle MB counselors and actually
> > run Eagle MB classes; again, what initiative does it take on the
> > part of the boy?
>
> In some troops, the SM assigns the MBC; in others, the Scout has to
> seek out an MBC with the SM's approval. But in every case, the SM has
> the authority to accept the MBC or not.
The point I was making here is that the Troop provides programs for
these MB's instead of requiring the boy to take the initiative and
earn the badge on his own. That supports the "dumbing down"
contention.
Some final points about the SM assigning the MBC. First, as I already
mentioned, any counselor's certification that the boy has earned the
MB is necessary and sufficient; no other approvals or pre-
authorizations are required. Second, which is what we went through
with the Jambo situation, is the "provisional SM workaround" (i.e, at
Jambo, the SM of the Council's Jambo Troop is the boy's SM, so he can
authorize MB work, and all boys had blanket SM approval for all badges
at the MB Midway).
In any event, it looks like SM assignment and approval of MB
counselors is not required.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Jun 14, 8:33 pm, "Mr. A" <cander10-NOS...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is a shame that National keeps dumbing down the requirements for Eagle.
>> I know many Eagle Scouts who are disgusted by the direction National is
>> going and are insulted by how easily some troops simply "give away badges."
>
>This is a big sore point with me. When I first started out in
>Scouting, the "word" that I got was that having in-Troop MB counselors
>for Eagle-required badges was highly discouraged. Then within the
>last 5 years, I saw how this has changed-
>
>1. One was the increase in "Trail to Eagle" camps, where some of the
>"intellectual" Eagle required badges are available. There's no issue
>that the boys cover the material, and often learn more about the topic
>than they would getting the badge the traditional way, but it requires
>virtually no initiative by the boys; all that's needed is for the Bank
>of Daddy and/or Mommy to write a check.
There are two ways (that I know of) to solve the problem and one is
"adding to the rule book". Although Daddy and Grandaddy (c'est moi)
wrote the checks for sons and grandsons in BSA they all had to pass
every test and every MB to me before they went to the person who
signed off for them. And their Eagle Sevrive Projects had to be
approved by me before getting "official" approval. As far as I know
that is legal. I know they all said everyone else was easy.
What is not according to Hoyle is the troop quizzing every Scout on
every MB to make sure he passed it properly. So we didn't do that. The
troops around here quiz the Scout to make sure the Counselor is doing
his job properly. 8-)
To my knowledge this Council last had a MB Counselor list more than 20
years ago when an Eagle Service Project helping BSA was legal. One
candidate, with the help of numerous Scouts, prepared a list of
Counselors to be approved for every MB in this District.
I hope Steve Henning quits reading here...
I'm not above asking a few questions of candidates in an effort to
determine how counselors are doing, particularly since a counselor can
be almost anyone nowadays. If an Eagle candidate has not essentially
done what is required for Eagle I suspect our Board will learn about
it - before or during the Board. One thing about having long presence
on the Board is that both leaders and Scouts talk to you and let you
know whta's going on.
My bottom line is assuring quality and consistency in candidates we
approve for Eagle. I'm going to do that within the rules but I keep a
"rules stretcher" maintained at all times. I don't know abouth the
rest of the USA but I know how this Council feels about it.
>3. I had a boy see me for Cit/Nation about a year ago, his mother was
>his "buddy", and in casual conversation I found out that the only
>reason her son came to me what that "their Troop's" Cit/Nation
>counselor was unavailable. As I tried to understand what she meant,
>what it sounded like was that some parents from "their Troop" sign up
>as Eagle MB counselors and actually run Eagle MB classes; again, what
>initiative does it take on the part of the boy?
On the surface I see nothing wrong with the expert from the police
department teaching an in house Fingerprinting MB, or attorneys and
judge teaching the Citizenships. The point is to learn thus it's the
quality of instruction that should be our concern seems to me.
>Basically, the message that I'm getting is that there is definitely a
>move away from the concept of "showing initiative" being a part of
>earning non-camp Eagle-required badges, and that spoon-feeding such
>MB's to the boys is now acceptable.
This is a societal problem nowadays. An article in the paper mentioned
that we ought to start calling fat people obese instead of
sugarcoating words. Who ever thought advice like that would ever be
necessary. My words are "fat slob". If he has self-esteem the name
doesn't hurt, if he doesn't, lying to him by sugarcoating words is
going to harm more than help.
This post will probably fuel a lot of debate.
Hugh
Fred Goodwin, CMA
> On Jun 15, 11:16 am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgood...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Its within the SM's prerogative to approve a boy's MBC; if you
> > as SM don't like such programs, then don't approve them for
> > your boys.
>
> As I understand National's policy, which was posted at the time we
> were having this discussion two years ago, any MB approved by any
> registered MB counselor is valid.
True; what I meant to say was, part of the SM's role in the MB process
is to "give" the Scout the name of an MBC to use, after the boy has
selected a MB to work on (see Requirements Book, p22). Now, some SMs
may delegate to the Scout the decision of selecting an MBC; if so,
then the SM has no grounds to complain about the boy's choice.
If the SM has already signed the blue card authorizing the boy to
begin work on his MB without giving the Scout the name of an MBC, then
the boy is free to choose any MBC he wants, including MBCs within the
troop.
> And in the case of the 40th, we wanted a blue card signed by the
> counselor we sent him to.
That's a fair expectation and one I would expect Scouts to honor.
That's the process as described in the Requirements Book.
> If that counselor was willing to sign off based on the Jambo
> yellow sheet, that was his perrogative.
Agreed.
> The point I was making here is that the Troop provides programs
> for these MB's instead of requiring the boy to take the
> initiative and earn the badge on his own. That supports
> the "dumbing down" contention.
Just because the troop adults volunteer as MBCs doesn't mean the boys
aren't earning the MB on their own. I am registered with my Council
as an MBC for Communications. You can ask any boy in my troop I've
counseled, and they will tell you I make them follow every requirement
exactly as written -- they'll get no free rides from me.
But what I think you're really taking about is the "adult association"
method, rather than the advancement method. I think by working with
adults on a merit badge (as any Scout must do), they are getting the
benefit of the adult association method.
Might the Scout get *more* benefit by taking the initiative and
seeking an adult outside their troop? Probably, but that's not a
requirement for any MB; adding such a requirement is a violation of
BSA policy.
Again, the tools are already in place to encourage a boy to use a
preferred MBC, and that's the SM's authorization to begin work on the
MB.
> Some final points about the SM assigning the MBC. First, as I
> already mentioned, any counselor's certification that the boy has
> earned the MB is necessary and sufficient; no other approvals or
> pre-authorizations are required.
I agree that once signed by the MBC, there can be no questioning the
blue card; however, MBCs should not begin work with a boy on a MB
unless the boy presents a blue card duly signed by his SM. And the SM
can give the boy the name of a specific MBC to work with. Of course,
that MBC can be any duly registered MBC, including troop parents.
> Second, which is what we went through with the Jambo situation,
> is the "provisional SM workaround" (i.e., at Jambo, the SM of the
> Council's Jambo Troop is the boy's SM, so he can authorize MB
> work, and all boys had blanket SM approval for all badges at the
> MB Midway).
Well, who's fault was that? If its your troop's policy that Eagle MBs
cannot be earned at MB mills, then the Jambo SM should have been
informed of that by the boy's actual SM. Don't fault the boy for
taking advantage of an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the boy had been told in advance that he could
not work on Eagle MBs at the Jambo, but did it anyway, then that
sounds like its time for a SM Conference with the boy (and maybe his
parents, too).
> In any event, it looks like SM assignment and approval of MB
> counselors is not required.
Again, its the SM's job to give the Scout the name of a MBC once the
boy decides on a MB to work on. The SM can delegate that role if he
wants to, but the SM has every right to make the decision of MBC for
the boy.
Take a look at the Requirements Book; its right there.
YiS
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> In my posting, I never said anything about an arbitrary attendance
> requirement. All I said is that he's expected to do the job that his
> Position of Responsibility requires him to do.
Exactly -- and the POR job descriptions from National have no
attendance requirement in them. But a boy certainly can be removed if
he isn't fulfilling the POR job description.
> Even this "remove him" creates problems. Obviously the boy will need
> to be given some number of chances before it's clear he's not doing
> the job, so we need to figure that the time from appointment to
> removal will be at least 2 months. Then he's given another chance,
> and eventually will manage to get 6 months in somehow (4 for Star)
> while doing virtually nothing. Also, how does he "requalify" for a
> PoR?
I'm not sure what you mean by "requalifying" for a POR? But if you're
saying its harder to work with a boy who isn't meeting requirements
than to simply deny him POR credit because he failed an arbitray
attendance requirement, I would agree with you.
But nobody ever said being a SM was going to be easy. Many people
*have* said however that its against policy to add to requirements.
> A related point I posted a while ago is at what point can a boy
> claim that he was, in effect, serving in a PoR, even though he hadn't
> been formally appointed to the position?
Good point; one I hadn't considered. I guess without having run into
that situation (have you? Or this just a hypothetical?), I'd say
"sorry, you (and everyone else) were given a chance to stand for
election (to an elected position) or to request an appointed
position. Simply working the position and expecting credit isn't
enough -- if it was, there would be no need for elections or
appointments -- next time, speak up for the job you want".
> Finally, at what point does Scout Spirit become a legitimate factor?
> If upon taking the job, and at remedial Scoutmaster Conferences, the
> boy makes it clear that he understands that his job requires him to
> attend campouts, and then he just doesn't attend (and giving him the
> benefit of the doubt, we'll assume he simply chose to do something
> else, and not because of a family commitment or emergency), tell me
> why we're not looking at trustworthy, loyal, helpful, and obedient?
Again, if he's not meeting the requirements of the job -- remove him.
And in any event, the requirement is to demonstrate Scout Spirit by
living the Scout Oath and Law IN YOUR DAILY LIFE. Not in Scouts, but
away from Scouts!
That's why attendance is not relevant to the Scout Spirit requirement.
Stephen Henning
> Okay, I can accept that a boy who's paid up and a member in good
> standing is an "active member", but I still don't see where that
> extends to a boy's wearing a job patch as fully defining "serve
> actively".
Stan, get with the program. National said that if you leave the Scout in
the position, that mere fact means he is serving actively:
"Unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his
assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the
Scout from that position."
> As I understand National's policy, which was posted at the time we
> were having this discussion two years ago, any MB approved by any
> registered MB counselor is valid.
The key here is registered MB counselor. Each Council Advancement
Committee is charged with coming up with a process of screening everyone
fills out an application to be a merit badge counselor. Until they are
approved, they may not serve. If any unit or Scout reports to the
Council Advancement Committee that a registered MB counselor is not
doing his job, they can see if the person needs training or removal.
> In any event, it looks like SM assignment and approval of MB
> counselors is not required.
That is not true. The official word is:
"When a Scout has an interest in earning a particular merit badge, he
obtains his Scoutmaster's/Varsity Scout Coach's approval and identifies
another Scout with similar interests to become his partner. They are
then directed to the appropriate merit badge counselor."
earthlink
This has been interesting and informative. I have a question on how the
Chartered Organization may play into this.
"The unit is owned and run by a sponsoring group called a chartered
organization. The chartered organization receives a national charter yearly
to use the Scouting program as a part of its youth work. The local council
helps the chartered organization understand the program, however it is the
chartered organization's program and is part of the chartered organizations
youth work. These groups, which have goals compatible with those of the Boy
Scouts of America, include religious, educational, community groups,
fraternal, business, labor, and professional associations. "
and
"The unit committee's primary responsibilities are supporting the Unit
Leader (Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, etc.) in delivering a quality unit program,
and helping unit administration. As the unit committee works on behalf of
the chartered organization, the unit must be operated within the
organization's policies."
Specifically, "however it is the chartered organization's program and is
part of the chartered organizations youth work." and "As the unit committee
works on behalf of the chartered organization, the unit must be operated
within the organization's policies.". If a COs policy, for all of its youth
groups, includes a certain amount of attendance to remain an active member,
are we (BSA) saying that is well and good for all of the other youth groups
the church sponsors, but not for the Scout groups?
Also, in the Aims and Methods of the Scouting Program, one of them is
"Associations With Adults. Boys learn a great deal by watching how adults
conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positive role models for the
members of the troop. In many cases a Scoutmaster who is willing to listen
to boys, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a
profound difference in their lives." Kind of hard to accomplish this if the
scout is not showing up.
..and all the other critters are just BEAR food.
"Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181918533.3...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Stephen Henning
> Why National finally decided to publicly post the guidance (that
> Councils have been privy to all along) is an open question.
Hi Fred,
That one is easy. The council is chartered by national to be the
contact with the units and the Scouters in the council. National's
policy was to support the councils but not interfere and deal directly
with the units and council Scouters. Obviously the councils made it
clear to the national advancement committee that some things that were
common knowledge to national and councils needed to be added to
advancement training materials. That is where they put it on the
scouting.org website.
Trad Scout Australia
Scout Award or is it an exclusive male preserve?
Stephen Henning
> Also, in the Aims and Methods of the Scouting Program, one of them is
> "Associations With Adults. Boys learn a great deal by watching how adults
> conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positive role models for the
> members of the troop. In many cases a Scoutmaster who is willing to listen
> to boys, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a
> profound difference in their lives." Kind of hard to accomplish this if the
> scout is not showing up.
Some Scouts come every week and are could use even more exposure to
benefit. Others are have more character than their leaders. They are
the ones that benefit most from other activities. As our council
commissioner put it:
"Music programs, academics, sports, church groups and Scouts are not in
competition, we all have the same goal, we just have different methods."
Stephen Henning
> Where units have mixed membership have any females obtained the Eagle
> Scout Award or is it an exclusive male preserve?
In the BSA there is no way a girl can make Eagle Scout. Girls can't
join units in the BSA except Venturing Units where the minimum age is
14. In Venturing units, boys that have already earned First Class can
continue working toward Eagle. Both boys and girls can work toward
Venturing goals such as Ranger and Silver Award and Sea Scouting awards
such as Quartermaster.
We have an unusual circumstance. The Girl Scouts USA are not connected
in any way with the BSA. The Girl Scouts have the Gold Award while the
Boy Scout have the Eagle Scout Award.
In the world about 1/3 of the countries have boy only programs such as
the muslim world, about 1/3 have separate programs such as the US, and
about 1/3 have combined programs such as France. At world Jamborees
they usually put the BSA with muslim groups so their won't be any girls.
The GSUSA doesn't belong to the WOSM and doesn't come to World
Jamborees. They only belong to WAGGGS.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I expect Steve will have a different experience.
But I have been actively involved with troops in one capacity or
another for 50 of the years since 1939. I have been closely involved
in 3 different states and with numerous troops. I have yet to see a CO
take an active part in BSA other than furnishing a meeeting place,
perhaps but not always some funding and on rare occasions a bus for
transportation.
My involvement includes COs such as Lion's Club, the Police
Department, a school and at least 5 Christian denomination churches.
There are 19 troops in my District and I believe every one is
sponsored by a church.
Hugh
Stan
>
> > As I understand National's policy, which was posted at the time we
> > were having this discussion two years ago, any MB approved by any
> > registered MB counselor is valid.
>
> True; what I meant to say was, part of the SM's role in the MB process
> is to "give" the Scout the name of an MBC to use, after the boy has
> selected a MB to work on (see Requirements Book, p22). Now, some SMs
> may delegate to the Scout the decision of selecting an MBC; if so,
> then the SM has no grounds to complain about the boy's choice.
We are clearly on different wavelengths here; there is definitely some
misunderstandings.
As was pointed out two years ago, when we were having the Jambo MB
discussion on this newsgroup, and which my Troop confirmed
independently, ANY registered BSA Merit Badge counselor anywhere can
approve a Merit Badge for any Scout. The counselor does not need any
sort of SM approval to work with the boy. This also means that if the
boy got a yellow sheet for an Eagle-required badge at Jambo, if we
refuse to honor it, and if the boy (or his parents) go to Council
instead of the MB counselor we sent him to, we would've been ordered
to record the MB based on the yellow sheet. I didn't like it when I
first heard about it, I still don't like it, but in the words of
Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is."
Our policy is based on the same page on the Requirements book that you
quoted, but that is not what's enforced, or National doesn't interpret
it as meaning that going to his SM is the ONLY way for a boy to be put
in contact with an MB Counselor.
Fred Goodwin, CMA
> "Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgood...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why National finally decided to publicly post the guidance (
> > question.
>
> That one is easy. The council is chartered by national to be
> the contact with the units and the Scouters in the council.
> National's policy was to support the councils but not interfere
> and deal directly with the units and council Scouters. Obviously
> the councils made it clear to the national advancement committee
> that some things that were common knowledge to national and
> councils needed to be added to advancement training materials.
> That is where they put it on the scouting.org website.
Thanx.
Still, its unfortunate that National made this FAQ so hard to find.
Its next to impossible to navigate to it directly from the BSA
homepage.
Given the resistance to change expressed by so many both here and on
SCOUTS-L, they'll just use the fact that it can't easily be found as
an excuse to ignore it and continue to apply attendance requirements
in violation of the policy.
Emma Pease
Stephen Henning wrote:
> Trad Scout Australia <bria...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Where units have mixed membership have any females obtained the Eagle
>> Scout Award or is it an exclusive male preserve?
>
> In the BSA there is no way a girl can make Eagle Scout. Girls can't
> join units in the BSA except Venturing Units where the minimum age is
> 14. In Venturing units, boys that have already earned First Class can
> continue working toward Eagle. Both boys and girls can work toward
> Venturing goals such as Ranger and Silver Award and Sea Scouting awards
> such as Quartermaster.
>
> We have an unusual circumstance. The Girl Scouts USA are not connected
> in any way with the BSA. The Girl Scouts have the Gold Award while the
> Boy Scout have the Eagle Scout Award.
>
> In the world about 1/3 of the countries have boy only programs such as
> the muslim world, about 1/3 have separate programs such as the US, and
> about 1/3 have combined programs such as France. At world Jamborees
> they usually put the BSA with muslim groups so their won't be any girls.
> The GSUSA doesn't belong to the WOSM and doesn't come to World
> Jamborees. They only belong to WAGGGS.
Hmm, I think your numbers are off. Also many countries have mixed sex
programs that belong to WOSM and a girl only program that belongs to
WAGGGS. In one country, Slovenia, both the WOSM and the WAGGGS
programs are mixed sex.
Also WAGGGS individual members can attend World Jamborees assuming
their WOSM national scouting organization agrees to include them as
participants in their group to the Jamboree. I'm not sure any GSUSA
member has ever done that or the BSA would allow it.
As for female Eagle Scouts, I believe the Philippines Scouts which
also has Eagle Scout as its top rank recently admitted girls and they
presumably will gain Eagle. Other national scouting organizations
have other names for top ranks.
WAGGGS and WOSM do talk and they were founded by the same person. WOSM
has also given the Bronze Wolk (its only award given to people who
have made major contributions to the World Scouting Movement) to a few
WAGGGS leaders over the years such as Olave Baden-Powell and Leslie
Whateley.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Stephen Henning
> Also WAGGGS individual members can attend World Jamborees assuming
> their WOSM national scouting organization agrees to include them as
> participants in their group to the Jamboree. I'm not sure any GSUSA
> member has ever done that or the BSA would allow it.
I am not sure about world jamborees, but I was part of getting Girl
Scouts to attend the BSA National Jamboree. We registered a Girl Scout
Troop as an Explorers Post (before LFL existed) and they went as an
Explorer Post. They were allowed to go as a unit rather than as part of
a contingent since they were explorers. That was in 1989. I don't think
it has ever happened since. Today Venture Scouts can only attend
National Jamborees as staff members. Many girls do that.
The following numbers are from WOSM and WAGGGS. There is a small
discrepancy.
155 National Scout Organizations belong to WOSM.
144 Girl Guide and Girl Scout National Organizations belong to WAGGGS.
34 National Scout Organizations belong to both WOSM and WAGGGS.
122 National Scout organizations belong to only WOSM.
95 of these have at least one programs for boys and girls
20 of these have no programs for girls
110 National Girl Guide & Girl Scout National Organization belongs only
to WAGGGS
Even though the Boy Scouts of America has been coed since 1971, the Girl
Scouts USA has shown no interest in changing. The BSA allegedly confers
with GSUSA when they form a new coed program. The current coed programs
in the BSA are Exploring, Learning For Life, Venturing and Sea Scouting.
They all require the youth members to be between 14 and 21. Most Boy
Scout camps have many female staff members including youth. Philmont
has many female staff members including the highly respected positions
of Ranger. The years I have been to Philmont, about half the Rangers
were female. All adult leadership positions in the BSA are open to
women. The only restriction is that at least one male adult leader must
be present on overnight trips if male youth are present and at least one
female adult leader must be present overnight trips if female youth are
present.
As far as I know there is only one area where the BSA and GSUSA have
partnered and that is with the American Indian Scouting Association. It
is sad if this is the only area where our associations interact. When I
was a Boy Scout executive, I worked closely with the Girl Scout
executives. However, they operated very differently than we did so we
couldn't cooperate on many things.
Stephen Henning
> As was pointed out two years ago, when we were having the Jambo MB
> discussion on this newsgroup, and which my Troop confirmed
> independently, ANY registered BSA Merit Badge counselor anywhere can
> approve a Merit Badge for any Scout. The counselor does not need any
> sort of SM approval to work with the boy. This also means that if the
> boy got a yellow sheet for an Eagle-required badge at Jambo, if we
> refuse to honor it, and if the boy (or his parents) go to Council
> instead of the MB counselor we sent him to, we would've been ordered
> to record the MB based on the yellow sheet. I didn't like it when I
> first heard about it, I still don't like it, but in the words of
> Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is."
Has this ever happened or is this just another Internet Legend???
I don't know of any council that will require a Scoutmaster to accept
any merit badge counselor other than the one he picks. Of course the
Scoutmaster must be responsible about this, but if he is, I don't now of
any instance where this has ever been appealed.
On the other hand, many merit badge counselors from various councils are
present and most Scoutmasters and most councils will accept these
people. It is entirely reasonable to have a council approved MB
counselor review what the Scout did at Jamboree.
At our camp, the Scoutmaster's are required to provide signed blue cards
before a Scout is accepted in any MB program.
Stephen Henning
> I expect Steve will have a different experience.
> But I have been actively involved with troops in one capacity or
> another for 50 of the years since 1939. I have been closely involved
> in 3 different states and with numerous troops. I have yet to see a CO
> take an active part in BSA other than furnishing a meeeting place,
> perhaps but not always some funding and on rare occasions a bus for
> transportation.
You are right Hugh, my experience is different. I have had several
pastors be Scoutmasters (Lutheran and Catholic). We had the head of
church council (UCC) be a Cubmaster and Scoutmaster. A Methodist church
had a very strong COR that helped me with recruiting and reorganization.
We had a Monsignor (RC) and a Cantor on our Council Committee. One
Lutheran and one UCC church required the Scout committee to report
monthly on their activities to the Church Council. One Scoutmaster
defied the church council on this directive and was replaced. As a DE I
always approached the units through the pastors or their CORs. We
didn't get many CORs to council meetings, but they did know who they
were and what their units were doing. All churches invited Scouts to
attend on Scout Sunday in uniform. Many Scouts did this. Our district
leadership attended with them in Uniform. All of our Eagle ceremonies
were in churches. Some were during worship services. Most weren't.
Many pastors had special clerical robes with Scout badges just for Scout
services. Many of the pastors and priests were Eagle Scouts. A priest
led our Jamboree Contingent and a Philmont Contingent. I always tried
to keep the pastors, priests, and CORs in the loop when anything was
happening. I did the annual charter review with all pastors and priests
that had units. We had one Scout die because of a heart defect and two
pastors in Scout uniform presided at his funeral. I even had a Mormon
unit that did some things. They sort of have their own Mormon Council
in Pennsylvania and don't do much with local BSA councils other than
registration and advancement. I had one Mormon boy, that wanted to make
Eagle in a very small Troop, dual register with a non-Mormon Troop since
his Mormon unit wasn't getting advancement done. I have never heard of
any other youth dual registered. The only restriction was that all his
advancement had to come from one of the units.
My experience with civic organizations as charter partners is dismal.
They will throw money at a Scout unit, but they don't get involved.
Churches here are very strong charter partners. I made sure every
church knew it, not the Boy Scouts, owned the unit(s).
Stan
> Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > As was pointed out two years ago, when we were having the Jambo MB
> > discussion on this newsgroup, and which my Troop confirmed
> > independently, ANY registered BSA Merit Badge counselor anywhere can
> > approve a Merit Badge for any Scout. The counselor does not need any
> > sort of SM approval to work with the boy. This also means that if the
> > boy got a yellow sheet for an Eagle-required badge at Jambo, if we
> > refuse to honor it, and if the boy (or his parents) go to Council
> > instead of the MB counselor we sent him to, we would've been ordered
> > to record the MB based on the yellow sheet. I didn't like it when I
> > first heard about it, I still don't like it, but in the words of
> > Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is."
>
> Has this ever happened or is this just another Internet Legend???
Here is the posting about the absolute validity of the Jambo yellow
sheets-
One problem is that if there is a BSA policy that states that any boy
can earn any merit badge at any BSA camp or local Council or National
Council sponsored MB event (and we received info claiming there was
such a policy), it is one of the best-kept secrets around (i.e., in
the same category as the meaning of Be Active and Serve Actively had
been) . In fact our own Council Advancement Chairman told us we have
the right to assign the merit badge counselor, even as the person
reading us the riot act on Jambo MB's was telling us that the boy is
not even required to interact with only the counselor we write on the
blue card.
Incidentally, I found the following paragraph at
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/
Most local councils (including summer camps) use the Application for
Merit Badge, or blue card, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT REQUIRED (NOTE: emphasis
mine). This tool just makes the recordkeeping easier for the Scout,
the merit badge counselor, and the unit leader. At summer camp, a
Scout may receive partial credit for completion of a merit badge on
the blue card, which goes to the Scoutmaster at week's end. Back home,
the Scout would need to contact a merit badge counselor for assistance
with completing the rest of the requirements.
Mr. A
"Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182015924.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
to ignor it! And I don't need an excuse either.
Mr. A
clkel...@msn.com
> be present on overnight trips if male youth are present and at least one
> female adult leader must be present overnight trips if female youth are
> present.
>
I didn't think that was required for BSA troops. For some reason I
remember that BSA leadership could be all women. (I vaguely remember
reading about a troop on a military base, where most of the dads were
deployed, and the leaders were the moms.)
Carol
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
married.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGeHQD2kz4fWh3iuERAocRAJ9rLe+A7bv5fLrw/ODxWUoUjvjzRACePqMA
/EQ4f2BhmAagvp8OMHCE35U=
=iZ0e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Henning
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
> married.
From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
"Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
No restriction on being married or not.
No restriction on two of each gender.
The requirement is a minimum of two, one male and one female.
Robert Haar
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, clkel...@msn.com wrote:
>
>> The only restriction is that at least one male adult leader must
>>> be present on overnight trips if male youth are present and at least one
>>> female adult leader must be present overnight trips if female youth are
>>> present.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't think that was required for BSA troops. For some reason I
>> remember that BSA leadership could be all women. (I vaguely remember
>> reading about a troop on a military base, where most of the dads were
>> deployed, and the leaders were the moms.)
>
> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
> married.
Did you get this in writing, or a reference to BSA regulations to support
it? None of it sounds right.
"none of them married" - does that mean that you need unmarried adult
leaders?
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@maysonj.tx.slr.com>,
> John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
>> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
>> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
>> married.
>
>From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
>
>"Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
>participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
>on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
>female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
>one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
In all my years I only went on one campout where adult females were
along. I was never so uncomfortable in all my life.
Yet I saw no reason why both sexes should not be there. New ideas like
that don't come easily to us dinosaurs.
Hugh
Wally...@nospam.nul
Sullivan) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:20:52 -0400, Stephen Henning <pig...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@maysonj.tx.slr.com>,
>> John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
>>
>>> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
>>> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
>>> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
>>> married.
>>
>>From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
>>
>>"Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
>>participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
>>on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
>>female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
>>one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
>
>In all my years I only went on one campout where adult females were
>along. I was never so uncomfortable in all my life.
Pedophiles must really be uncomfortable when women are around to see
the way they stare at the fannies of those young boys...
>Yet I saw no reason why both sexes should not be there. New ideas like
>that don't come easily to us dinosaurs.
>
>Hugh
Uh, the majority of the Scout WORLD goes co-ed, except for the phony
morality USA. No wonder there are so many Puritan pedophiles...
John Mayson
> In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@maysonj.tx.slr.com>,
> John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
>> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
>> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
>> married.
>
> From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
>
> "Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
> participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
> on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
> female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
> one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
>
> No restriction on being married or not.
> No restriction on two of each gender.
> The requirement is a minimum of two, one male and one female.
Are you sure that's all there to it? BSA doesn't consider a married
couple to be "two people" because they cannot be made to testify against
one another in court.
But this brings to another point. I cannot tell you how many things I've
been told in training that was just plain wrong.
When I first became a Cub Scout leader I was told neither boys nor leaders
should ever travel in uniform. The reason was they didn't want to draw
attention to the boys. But I was told exactly the opposite when I became
a Boy Scout leader. I figure someone (probably the former) is wrong.
I'm an "emergency care attendant", or what the other 49 states call a
"medical first responder". When we got to the first aid portion of the
SMF training I was crawling out of my skin. They were telling us
information that wasn't even close to being right (for instance heat
stroke isn't life threatening, it's just really bad heat exhaustion and the
best cure is warm Gatorade). There were a few other items that were
wrong. I finally just stopped saying anything.
John Mayson
>
> Did you get this in writing, or a reference to BSA regulations to support
> it? None of it sounds right.
>
> "none of them married" - does that mean that you need unmarried adult
> leaders?
My wording was ambiguous. As I mentioned in my previous post, according
to more than one Cub/Boy Scouting I've attended, BSA doesn't consider a
barried couple to be "two people" because spouses are not required to
testify against each other in court.
For instance, my wife and I are on a campout and I seriously injure a
Scout. We're the only two around. She cannot be forced to testify
against me and also it's in her best interest to keep me out of jail, so
she says nothing and it's my word against the Scout's. That's exactly
what the two-deep leadership is trying to avoid.
clkel...@msn.com
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:20:52 -0400, Stephen Henning <pigh...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0706191011170.3...@maysonj.tx.slr.com>,
> > John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
>
> >> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
> >> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
> >> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
> >> married.
>
> >From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
>
> >"Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
> >participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
> >on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
> >female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
> >one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
>
female leaders.
I'm pretty sure for BSA troops, (boys only) all of the adults can be
women.
(Just reread again, the GSS says nothing about at least one male
leader on boy only outings.)
Carol
Bruce E. Cobern
news:1182370029....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> That's what I'm saying, only the coed groups require both male
> and
> female leaders.
>
> I'm pretty sure for BSA troops, (boys only) all of the adults
> can be
> women.
>
> (Just reread again, the GSS says nothing about at least one
> male
> leader on boy only outings.)
Yes it does. The minute you add a female leader it becomes a
coed trip. NOTHING in the GSS says that a trip with coed YOUTH
requires coed leadership, it says that any coed trip requires
coed leadership. So, as I read the GSS you cannot take a Boy
Scout troop out without at least 21 year old male present.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
Advancement Chairman, Founders District
Queens Council, NY
mailto:b...@pipeline.com
Stephen Henning
> My wording was ambiguous. As I mentioned in my previous post, according
> to more than one Cub/Boy Scouting I've attended, BSA doesn't consider a
> barried couple to be "two people" because spouses are not required to
> testify against each other in court.
>
> For instance, my wife and I are on a campout and I seriously injure a
> Scout. We're the only two around. She cannot be forced to testify
> against me and also it's in her best interest to keep me out of jail, so
> she says nothing and it's my word against the Scout's. That's exactly
> what the two-deep leadership is trying to avoid.
Sounds great John, but the BSA doesn't say anything about this. Also,
the youth protection program is to prevent incidents, not prosecute
them. Once it reaches the court, you have all the Scouts for witnesses.
Before it happens, the adults are the ones responsible to prevent it.
Stephen Henning
> Yes it does. The minute you add a female leader it becomes a
> coed trip. NOTHING in the GSS says that a trip with coed YOUTH
> requires coed leadership, it says that any coed trip requires
> coed leadership. So, as I read the GSS you cannot take a Boy
> Scout troop out without at least 21 year old male present.
Bruce, you are confusing the issue. The requirement for leaders doesn't
depend on the leaders, it just depends on the youth. For example trips
with coed youth groups require male and female adult leaders, both of
whom must be 21.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
><clkel...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1182370029....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> That's what I'm saying, only the coed groups require both male
>> and
>> female leaders.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure for BSA troops, (boys only) all of the adults
>> can be
>> women.
>>
>> (Just reread again, the GSS says nothing about at least one
>> male
>> leader on boy only outings.)
>
>Yes it does. The minute you add a female leader it becomes a
>coed trip. NOTHING in the GSS says that a trip with coed YOUTH
>requires coed leadership, it says that any coed trip requires
>coed leadership. So, as I read the GSS you cannot take a Boy
>Scout troop out without at least 21 year old male present.
>
>--
>Bruce E. Cobern
Where have you been? Welcome back!
Hugh
Wally...@nospam.nul
>On Jun 20, 9:45?am, WallyPli...@nospam.nul wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:31:44 GMT, E...@roadrunner.com (J. Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sullivan) wrote:
>> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:20:52 -0400, Stephen Henning <pigh...@aol.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0706191011170.3...@maysonj.tx.slr.com>,
>> >> John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I just completed SMF a couple of months ago and we were told that at least
>> >>> two male adults must be present on a troop campout. In a mixed-gender
>> >>> Venturing Crew there must be at least two men and two women, none of them
>> >>> married.
>>
>> >>From the Guide To Safe Scouting for Coed Groups:
>>
>> >>"Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a
>> >>participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required
>> >>on all trips and outings. Coed overnight activities require male and
>> >>female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and
>> >>one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA."
>>
>> >In all my years I only went on one campout where adult females were
>> >along. I was never so uncomfortable in all my life.
>>
>> Pedophiles must really be uncomfortable when women are around to see
>> the way they stare at the fannies of those young boys...
>>
>> >Yet I saw no reason why both sexes should not be there. New ideas like
>> >that don't come easily to us dinosaurs.
>>
>> >Hugh
>>
>> Uh, the majority of the Scout WORLD goes co-ed, except for the phony
>> morality USA. No wonder there are so many Puritan pedophiles..
>
>We do not accept shit packers either. Is that alright with you?
Yes, you do: they are called ScoutMasters and they lust after anything
in little boys underwear...or out of it.
John Mayson
> John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> > My wording was ambiguous. As I mentioned in my previous post, according
> > to more than one Cub/Boy Scouting I've attended, BSA doesn't consider a
> > barried couple to be "two people" because spouses are not required to
> > testify against each other in court.
>
> > For instance, my wife and I are on a campout and I seriously injure a
> > Scout. We're the only two around. She cannot be forced to testify
> > against me and also it's in her best interest to keep me out of jail, so
> > she says nothing and it's my word against the Scout's. That's exactly
> > what the two-deep leadership is trying to avoid.
>
> Sounds great John, but the BSA doesn't say anything about this. Also,
> the youth protection program is to prevent incidents, not prosecute
> them. Once it reaches the court, you have all the Scouts for witnesses.
> Before it happens, the adults are the ones responsible to prevent it.
No, I've seen this one in writing. The prosecution part DOES help
prevent incidents because a person who wants to do harm knows a spouse
can cover for him.
Wait, I just looked. It appears to be a Council policy and not a BSA
policy.
Does anyone know the rules though about uniforms? Should a traveling
Pack/Troop be in or out of uniform? I've heard arguments for both and
they both make sense.
John Mayson
Dear Andy,
Under the heading of Youth Protection, the BSA says this about two-
deep leadership: "Two registered adult leaders or one registered
leader and a parent of a participant, one of whom must be 21 years of
age or older, are required on all trips and outings." We have two
conflicting opinions on a fine point and need a ruling... Does a married
couple qualify as "two deep" or does the BSA require two non-married
adults to fulfill this requirement? (George Payne, ADC, Michigan)
Since the BSA is silent on the subject of married/not married (to one
another) leadership, it would be foolhardy (and also pretty lame) for
me to offer a "ruling." If you really need this, check with your
council's risk management committee and ask the chair. That said, my
personal opinion (and please keep in mind that that's all it is!) is
that "it depends." If the married couple gets it-- they know how to
keep Scouts safe and how to comport themselves, then there should be
no problem; if they don't there's gonna be trouble. However, the same
can be said about any two leaders, married to one another or not!
"Fine points" like this don't come up and get debated without some
underlying problem. This usually means that the "rule" isn't the
problem-there's a "people problem" somewhere. This is what needs
resolution. Look deeper.
I did a Google search and I saw where some councils have rules
addressing this. I wonder if it has to do with state law? Perhaps
it's the legal opinion of some councils that in some states a married
couple only equals one person?
Still it concerns me that I know for a fact I've been told wrong
infromation in official BSA training and have also received
conflicting information.
John