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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.