Jump to content

Council Relations

Discuss issues relating to Scout Councils, districts and working with professionals

649 topics in this forum

    • 24 replies
    • 1623 views
    • 16 replies
    • 1408 views
    • 24 replies
    • 1931 views
    • 31 replies
    • 1703 views
    • 3 replies
    • 541 views
    • 10 replies
    • 833 views
    • 45 replies
    • 3274 views
    • 6 replies
    • 817 views
    • 36 replies
    • 1519 views
    • 4 replies
    • 662 views
    • 27 replies
    • 1435 views
    • 33 replies
    • 2418 views
    • 65 replies
    • 3144 views
    • 14 replies
    • 738 views
    • 4 replies
    • 867 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Eagle94-A1, By abusive I mean cursing, screaming, and threats.  A polite disagreement or registering of differences is not abusive.  Threats are common and death threats not unusual.  I do not know what is reported but suspect that a call will not be reported because the caller cannot be identified.
    • Uncanny! It's almost like you know me!  Lol... I have been asked to serve on five separate council committees because of my experience and belief in what Scouting can accomplish.  Yet, because I do not support FOS, our SE has denied my positions on those committees. I only suspect this because our SE has never told me he has denied my participation, nor why. I only hear the negative from the volunteers who have asked me to serve. Was also asked to serve on a neighboring council WB staff, and a regional and national committee, only to be later told "thanks, we're full".  I suspect my SE torpedoed those, and that the course director and committee chairs we trying to spare my feelings. I have some schadenfreude with BSA (the organization) circling the drain...knowing that Scouting (the movement) will continue.  I can wait  
    • OK, death threats are uncalled for, need to be investigated, and punished by the law. That is way over the line. Too far over the line. Obscene calls are also over the line. And need to be dealt with. As for abusive, it depend on the definition the pro is using. I had a SE state that publicly disagreeing with the council is abusive, and had the individual removed from Scouting. Whereas i have been yelled at and told I do not know what I was doing, etc by volunteers, but to told to grow a tougher skin by the same SE. The reason why folks are upset with national is that there is no transparency. Decision are made, and no one knows who is making them or why. When asked for input from volunteers, the results of that input are ignored, never posted, or responded with "double speak."  Volunteers were ignored regarding Instapalms as 94% Against (18%) or Strongly Against (76%). The poll regarding membership changes by the members and volunteers has never been published AND  a segment of the Scouting population, Western Region LDS members were excluded form those results. And look at the "double speak" of the Churchill Plan survey that national had to do because someone posted a slide. A lot of folks think Sea Scouts, OA, and Venturing are safe for the 18 to 20 year old members, when the "double speak: says they will continue talks on the matter. Further there are times when the national level volunteers making policies are overruled or uniformed of the decisions National has made or plan to make. Philmont being mortgaged but not informing the National Philmont Committee, nor the Trust about the mortgage is an example of National pros not being transparent with national volunteers. Another example is the National Sea Scout Commodore being completely taken off guard when the Churchill Plan was leaked. Not only should he have been informed, he should have been on the Churchill Committee. IMHO. Then there is the 411 Committee that redid the Cub Scout Program in June 2015. They were not informed prior to the December 2016 Cub Scout program changes. Volunteers are upset and angry at they way they are being treated by councils and by national. You have volunteers who will do anything in their power to help Scouts and units, but will do absolutely nothing for council, let alone National because of the treatment they have experienced.
    • 11/29/1944, Hancock County, Maine ... two men, underdressed and carrying large suitcases, trudging through the snow along the side of the road. It was just before midnight on a Wednesday, on the then sparsely populated Hancock Point peninsula. What on earth were the two men doing? As it turns out, what both Mary Forni and Scout Harvard Hodgkins had separately spotted were not two people simply lost in the snow. They’d seen two Nazi spies — William C. Colepaugh, a 26-year-old native of Niantic, Conn., and German native Erich Gimpel, 35, who around 11 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 29, 1944 made landfall in the U.S. after a two-month journey across the Atlantic Ocean in a German U-Boat.... rest at source https://bangordailynews.com/2020/11/29/news/hancock/how-a-down-east-boy-scout-and-his-neighbor-helped-foil-the-plans-of-two-nazi-spies/
    • About the issue that started my quest, it's clear now.  Reason prevailed.  not that it changed our practice. About beer, clear as mud.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...