Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Any District Commissioners out there who can help a "Newbie"

Expand Messages
  • Ilively@comcast.net
    I ve been going through my District section of the Council Training Report. It s a worthless piece of ..... paper! Here s just one example of this screwy
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been going through my District section of the Council Training Report. It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!

      Here's just one example of this screwy report.



      Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the report says he's not trained.
      Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee. Report says he IS trained.

      National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web Troop Committee training.



      Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all program areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).

      Lets try:
      Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
      Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained

      I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before the switch in 2001).

      It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor. THAT I understand.


      How about this mystery:
      Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained




      I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.


      Ida







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Sandra Martens
      the 2 pack people without CSLS but considered trained could have been trained in their old positions- DL, TL, whatever. It hasn t figured out how to
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        the 2 pack people without CSLS but considered trained could have been "trained" in their old positions- DL, TL, whatever. It hasn't figured out how to differentiate it- or it was only put into the computer as CSLS and not which session within it.
         
        as for the last one- could he have joined scouting before NLE started (say, with an older boy) and so it wasn't required?
         
        of course, the best reason for these mix ups is the system itself.  I have yet to hear a SUCCESS story of trained status in any unit.
         
        Sandy owl

        --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Ilively@... <Ilively@...> wrote:

        From: Ilively@... <Ilively@...>
        Subject: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help a "Newbie"
        To: ".scouter_t" <scouter_t@yahoogroups.com>, ".Scouts-L" <SCOUTS-L@...>
        Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:43 AM







        I've been going through my District section of the Council Training Report. It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!

        Here's just one example of this screwy report.

        Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the report says he's not trained.
        Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee. Report says he IS trained.

        National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web Troop Committee training.

        Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all program areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).

        Lets try:
        Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
        Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained

        I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before the switch in 2001).

        It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor. THAT I understand.

        How about this mystery:
        Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained

        I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.

        Ida

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Marilyn Sensabaugh
        Dear Ida, My name is Marilyn and I am the District Registrar for my District. In fact, this is a newly created position in our district, created as a result
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Ida,



          My name is Marilyn and I am the District Registrar for my District. In
          fact, this is a newly created position in our district, created as a result
          of the problem you are writing about.



          Unfortunately, there is no one answer to explain the problems we are all
          experiencing with ScoutNet. I actually have an example of 2 Assistant
          Scoutmasters in the same Troop, ScoutNet shows the same training entered for
          each one (they were trained on the same dates) and yet one shows up
          "trained" on the rosters and the other shows up "not trained." It is not a
          case of the data not being entered or being different codes, I believe there
          is a bug in the database causing the problem. Considering how complicated
          the system is, I would imagine that it would be inevitable.



          Which is why our district decided to keep all of our records, computerized
          and hard copies. Our district has been working on it for over a year now,
          and already we have verifiable and documented training numbers that are at
          least 10 percentage points better than what ScoutNet shows. And we still
          have much more data to collect. I think the important thing though, is not
          to worry about where to assign the blame, but to understand that no system
          is perfect and that having back up records in place when a system fails is
          just well, being prepared. Our district learned our lesson the hard way.



          Blessings,



          Marilyn



          From: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scouter_t@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Ilively@...
          Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:43 AM
          To: .scouter_t; .Scouts-L
          Subject: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help a
          "Newbie"




          I've been going through my District section of the Council Training Report.
          It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!

          Here's just one example of this screwy report.

          Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the
          report says he's not trained.
          Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee.
          Report says he IS trained.

          National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web Troop
          Committee training.

          Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all program
          areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).

          Lets try:
          Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
          Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained

          I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before the
          switch in 2001).

          It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as
          trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor.
          THAT I understand.

          How about this mystery:
          Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained

          I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the
          subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.

          Ida

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Alan Smason
          Yes, it s reports like these that can lead to lots of scratching one s head. If anyone asks what D.C. stands for, I usually say Definitely Confused! Alan
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, it's reports like these that can lead to lots of scratching one's head.
            If anyone asks what D.C. stands for, I usually say "Definitely Confused!"

            Alan Smason
            Fleur-de-lis District Commissioner
            Southeast Louisiana Council
            -----Original Message-----
            From: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scouter_t@yahoogroups.com]On
            Behalf Of Sandra Martens
            Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:03 AM
            To: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help
            a "Newbie"


            the 2 pack people without CSLS but considered trained could have been
            "trained" in their old positions- DL, TL, whatever. It hasn't figured out
            how to differentiate it- or it was only put into the computer as CSLS and
            not which session within it.

            as for the last one- could he have joined scouting before NLE started
            (say, with an older boy) and so it wasn't required?

            of course, the best reason for these mix ups is the system itself. I have
            yet to hear a SUCCESS story of trained status in any unit.

            Sandy owl

            --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Ilively@... <Ilively@...> wrote:

            From: Ilively@... <Ilively@...>
            Subject: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help a
            "Newbie"
            To: ".scouter_t" <scouter_t@yahoogroups.com>, ".Scouts-L"
            <SCOUTS-L@...>
            Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:43 AM

            I've been going through my District section of the Council Training
            Report. It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!

            Here's just one example of this screwy report.

            Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the
            report says he's not trained.
            Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee.
            Report says he IS trained.

            National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web
            Troop Committee training.

            Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all
            program areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).

            Lets try:
            Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
            Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained

            I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before
            the switch in 2001).

            It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as
            trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor.
            THAT I understand.

            How about this mystery:
            Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained

            I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the
            subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.

            Ida

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Steven Powell
            Ida, Why are you getting the Council Training Report for your district? As the DC you certainly should be encouraging UCs to support training in their
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Ida,



              Why are you getting the Council Training Report for your district? As the
              DC you certainly should be encouraging UCs to support training in their
              respective units but District Training is under the District Training Chair
              who is under the District Program Chair who is under the District Chairman
              and not the District Commissioner. Same is true with council training. The
              Council Commissioner has nothing to do with training except Commissioner
              training and unless there is an agreement with your District Training Chair
              you are responsible for training Unit Commissioners as well as your RT
              Commissioners.



              Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree, it's basically a worthless document. A
              few years ago the specific training code was indicated and you had many
              people asking "does anyone know what all the codes mean" in this forum.
              Wait until you get to LDS units and realize in many instances the same
              person is listed in key positions for all units chartered by their Ward and
              they aren't trained. That can be a nightmare unless you have good contacts
              without the church to help get those folks to training (they are very busy
              with home (family), church and work so it's challenging to do). This is what
              frustrates District Training Chairs when they hear "get the training numbers
              up" from the Council Training Chair and they try and identify those needing
              training and you get a sheet that is worthless. Wait until you actually
              contact a person and they say I've done "THAT" training. You'll use up your
              hour this week pretty quickly trying to cross reference you Training
              Attendance Reports with the information on the council training Summary
              Report.



              What is needed is a system for getting the information to your council
              registrar. But, that isn't fool proof because there are many reasons why
              the information may be of little use, for example, unless you have the BSA
              Membership Number along with the report you can't guarantee it'll get
              credited accurately via ScoutNet. If the name is Steve Powell (I sign a
              lot) and not Steven Powell (official registered name) then the records may
              not be accurate. What's the old saying "garbage in, garbage out"? The
              record now shows one "S.Powell" as trained and the other not. There are
              other examples so here we fundamentally track our training through our
              District Registrar of Training. All Training Attendance Reports go to her
              and then she makes sure it goes to the Council Registrar. We do this
              electronically. We maintain records at the district level and council
              level. We've been doing this now for 4 years and we no longer hear things
              like "they lost my records". (P.S. She actually generates the Training
              Attendance Reports before the training since we glean the individual
              information from our online registration. She then separates the info into
              the various components (CSLBT, BSLBT, NLE, YPT, etc.) and sends the info
              already inserted into the Training Attendance Report to the Training
              Coordinator for that venue and he or she prints it out and has people sign
              in when they show. Walk ins are added and then returned to her after the
              training. Each Training Coordinator has a copy---District Registrar of
              Training has a copy---and she sends the Final Training Report to the Council
              Registrar and, presumably, she now has a copy.)



              IB,

              Steve



              From: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scouter_t@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Ilively@...
              Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:43 AM
              To: .scouter_t; .Scouts-L
              Subject: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help a
              "Newbie"




              I've been going through my District section of the Council Training Report.
              It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!

              Here's just one example of this screwy report.

              Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the
              report says he's not trained.
              Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee.
              Report says he IS trained.

              National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web Troop
              Committee training.

              Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all program
              areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).

              Lets try:
              Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
              Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained

              I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before the
              switch in 2001).

              It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as
              trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor.
              THAT I understand.

              How about this mystery:
              Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained

              I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the
              subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.

              Ida

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Richard Damon
              ... As a District Training Chair, I get these reports and there are issues with them but if you understand it, can be useful. What I can figure out is that
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:43:12 +0000 (UTC), Ilively@... wrote:

                >
                >I've been going through my District section of the Council Training Report. It's a worthless piece of ..... paper!
                >
                >Here's just one example of this screwy report.
                >
                >
                >
                >Ray H Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and WEB Troop Committee, but the report says he's not trained.
                >Phil B Troop 20 as MC. He's had NLE, YP and in person Troop Committee. Report says he IS trained.
                >
                >National BSA says there is no difference between the in person and web Troop Committee training.
                >
                >
                >
                >Unfortunately there's a ton more like this in the report, across all program areas (I have CS, BS and Venturing units in my District).
                >
                >Lets try:
                >Pack 23 CC Shawn L Yes NLE, No CSLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
                >Pack 44 MC Stephanie R Yes NLE, No CSLST, No YP. Listed as Trained
                >
                >I can only assume that this means that these leaders took CSLBT (before the switch in 2001).
                >
                >It would be like the SM/ASM who have not had SMS/IOLS, but are listed as trained -- they were trained under SMF I, II and III, or it's predecessor. THAT I understand.
                >
                >
                >How about this mystery:
                >Pack 31 CM David M No NLE, Yes CLST, Yes YP. Listed as Trained
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >I've been trying to sort this out. Can anyone shed some light on the subject? I feel like I need about 10,000 watts at this point.
                >
                >
                >Ida
                >

                As a District Training Chair, I get these reports and there are issues
                with them but if you understand it, can be useful. What I can figure
                out is that once a person reaches the point where scoutnet considers
                them trained, they get marked trained even if the requirements change
                (which is basically what the policies say), Therefore some people not
                appearing to qualify as trained but marked as such are likely this
                case.

                One new big bugaboo is that with the new web based version of some of
                the courses, it doesn't understand that the person can do either and
                get credit, it seems like it thinks they need to do both (which is not
                what the rules state).

                Add to that the issue of not all records getting into scoutnet, and in
                some cases people going in and manually overriding settings to reflect
                training done but not entered, you can get some conflicting
                information. The best I have figured to do is to talk to people and
                indicate that the records show this ... which say you should take this
                ... and if they tell me they did take it (or a predicessor course) see
                if I can get the records updated. I rarely find people marked as
                having taken a course they haven't.


                Richard Damon
                Scout Master Troop 302
                Pack Trainer, Pack 306
                Arlington MA
                District Training Chair, Sons of Liberty District, Boston Minuteman Council
                I used to be a fox (NE-I-209) and a good old staffer too (NE-I-234, NE-I-244, NE-I-258, NE-I-261)
                | >>>-------------------> |
              • Ilively@comcast.net
                Thank you all for your help with this. I m grabbing the records to help my Unit Commissioners when they are reviewing the Centennial Award with their units.
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you all for your help with this.

                  I'm grabbing the records to help my Unit Commissioners when they are reviewing the Centennial Award with their units. There's a requirement of % of leaders trained. I want them to be able to look at a list and say: If you get "So-and-so to take this one part of training, they'll be trained and you'll get the award."

                  Over the past week or so, I've looked at the training for all Adult Leaders in my District (at least those registered!), and saw a mess. ;)

                  Many of you may recall that I was the District Training Chair for 5+ years, so I have some history available at my fingertips. [I'm very computer oriented and if I didn't put the Training Attendance Sheet directly into a PDF, I scanned them in.] I was also the Training Liaison -- which meant that whenever I had free time, I'd go to the Council Office, take over a computer, and sit down with the most recent Training Attendance Sheets and verify that the training listed was credited.

                  I'm glad to hear that I'm not nutz about the online vs in person trainings. I do hope that National gets that part straightened out, especially if we're going to more web-based trainings.


                  In Scouting,

                  Ida


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dmcdlgcs
                  I m also greatful for the question at this particular time, because there are days that this part, which is the majority of the time I spend, just doesn t seem
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm also greatful for the question at this particular time, because
                    there are days that this part, which is the majority of the time I
                    spend, just doesn't seem worth it...and then a bunch of people remind
                    me that I'm not alone, that we have a common goal, and that
                    ultimately we are making a difference.

                    Thanks, all, for the reminder,

                    YIS,
                    Dawn Gent
                    Cub Scout Training Chair
                    Del-Mar-Va Council
                    I used to be an Eagle NE-IV-211

                    --- In scouter_t@yahoogroups.com, Ilively@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Thank you all for your help with this.
                    >
                    > I'm grabbing the records to help my Unit Commissioners when they
                    are reviewing the Centennial Award with their units. There's a
                    requirement of % of leaders trained. I want them to be able to look
                    at a list and say: If you get "So-and-so to take this one part of
                    training, they'll be trained and you'll get the award."
                    >
                    > Over the past week or so, I've looked at the training for all Adult
                    Leaders in my District (at least those registered!), and saw a
                    mess. ;)
                    >
                    > Many of you may recall that I was the District Training Chair for
                    5+ years, so I have some history available at my fingertips. [I'm
                    very computer oriented and if I didn't put the Training Attendance
                    Sheet directly into a PDF, I scanned them in.] I was also the
                    Training Liaison -- which meant that whenever I had free time, I'd go
                    to the Council Office, take over a computer, and sit down with the
                    most recent Training Attendance Sheets and verify that the training
                    listed was credited.
                    >
                    > I'm glad to hear that I'm not nutz about the online vs in person
                    trainings. I do hope that National gets that part straightened out,
                    especially if we're going to more web-based trainings.
                    >
                    >
                    > In Scouting,
                    >
                    > Ida
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.