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

Re: [Scouter_T] Any District Commissioners out there who can help a "Newbie"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
      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 2 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
        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 3 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
          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 4 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
            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 5 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
              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 6 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
                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 7 of 8 , Nov 6, 2008
                  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.