Youth assigned this youth leadership are unable to update the events because we have linked troops and all our events have both troops included. The role only applies to the troop they are in so they can’t update or create any events for our linked troops. Sigh. It was a great idea though. I know it is not likely it will ever be fixed, but if one day you do update the calendar feature, please remember those of us with linked troops need it to work for us too.
This is true for scouters who are not registered leaders with calendar editing permission in both units as well. It’s one of the reasons I think that having only one calendar event for more than one unit is an issue.
Including linked units on a single event is the only reason we are able to use the calendar. This “feature” has saved us many volunteer hours. Otherwise we would have to duplicate every event (double the effort and a management nightmare, for a poor volunteer, if anything needs to be updated). We would go from managing over 100 events a year to managing 200 events a year, needlessly, since they are exact duplicates. It would also make it harder on our adult leaders who need to know who is going to the event, now they have to check calendars and print off two rsvp reports. Pretty sure that is not an issue, sounds like a great feature that saves linked troops TONS of time.
Linked troops are a valid structure and the tools should support that structure. Other calendars seem to manage this just fine, the only issue is the lack of planning to develop it.
Per BSA policy, linked troops are still separate troops with their own youth leadership. The calendar editor role is for a single troop and will remain this way as long as the policy on linked troops remains.
According to this policy, if you are utilizing youth calendar editors, each unit should have their own to manage their own calendar.
1 Like
Linked troops are valid. The SPLs or scribes from the units should coordinate.
Adult leaders registered in the 2 units can manage both calendars because they are in both units.
For Scouts, that is not true. If this was changed software wise, it would enable an unapproved structure they is not the program.
1 Like
There is a way to solve it, which would be similar to the way den chiefs work, allowing den chiefs to be a member of a pack and show up on events etc.
Step 1: Identify in Troop settings a linked troop, admin would approve in other troop that it is a valid linked troop.
Step 2: Add to Calendar Editor Leadership Role assignment options for updating the linked troops’ calendars, just like there are options now that specify which calendars the editor can edit in the current troop.
This linked troop setting could also help with adding new scouts/adults to bulk events shared by linked troops, which is currently disabled in the feature assistant for linked troops.
It isn’t going to happen. The BSA has said each troop must have its own youth leadership. This means the boy’s troop will have a Calendar editor to manage events for the boy’s troop and the girl’s troop will have a Calendar editor to manage events for the girl’s troop. It does not matter that they are participating in the same event at the same time and location. There is 1 calendar for each unit and if managed by youth, must be managed by a member of that troop.
Our troops do have their own youth leadership but they share in planning and executing.
We should be encouraging ease of use not making things harder. Tme is a commodity, if you waste people’s time they will not stick around.
The only way this may change is if you advocate through your Council to get the policy for Scouts BSA troops changed. Scoutbook follows BSA policy.
1 Like
Unfortunately, that means for us an adult in both troops will have to continue to edit and create events, taking youth leadership opportunity away from scouts in both troops.
Or you could have a Scout in each troop manage their own calendars.
2 Likes
Pretty sure that there are more valuable things we can have scouts do that duplicating efforts to post duplicate information. Not sure that is teaching them valuable life skills or how to be smart in utilizing time.
I disagree. The troops are supposed to have separate PLC meetings. SPLs talk before PLC meetings and decide to camp at “North State Park” on Sept 9-11. Each SPL goes to their PLC meeting, makes plans for their troop to attend the campout and the calendar editor enters the event on the troop calendar.
2 Likes
There is no BSA policy that says we have to have separate PLC meetings.
We emulate an actual real world professional environment where males and females work together to decide and plan. It works extremely well for us.
Let’s agree to disagree.
From Scouts BSA: Program Update (May 3, 2018)
Q: Can a boy troop and a girl troop plan events together?
No, the Patrol Leader’s Councils of each troop should be responsible for the planning of their perspective troop activities.
Q: Can a boy troop and girl troop coordinate outings together?
Yes, they can coordinate outings together if they are Scout-related following the Guide to
Safe Scouting and Youth Protection guidelines.
3 Likes
Two contradictory answers to the same question. Obviously we are not going to agree.
I will say again, time is a commodity - having two people divide and conquer a task is smart. Sometimes people get stuck on gender separation. It is not the way the world works. I hope that BSA will continue to make improvements to the program to keep scouting relevant.
You can close the thread now. Thanks for your input.
Coordinate and plan are 2 different things. Coordinate means you go to the same place at the same time. Plan is deciding what to eat, who cooks, what activities, etc.
The first answer says each troop has its own PLC.
1 Like
I think you are confusing patrol planning with PLC planning - no PLC is planning what to eat or who is cooking.
I think we’re starting to wander into program interpretation territory here, which rumor has it the BSA only wants done via official staff contacts at our respective councils.
I think @edavignon’s recommendation that a request for such a modification go up the food chain via the DE is the way to go here. Even if – in theory – you convinced Ed, he’s not the one making these decisions. He’s just the one carrying water. The BSA is just going to kick it back with the same response Ed is giving you now if Ed were to take the request further. Your council professionals might get more traction, although kinda I doubt it.
Thanks Charley, I agree with you. All I was asking is that during design we keep in mind we have linked troops that use this tool too. I even offered a suggested solution that makes sense.
It would be nice to have a response from someone on the SB advisory council say something like, Yes we hear you, and will communicate that in our meetings rather than say they disagree with our implementation of our linked troops. Really disappointing response.
