Jump to content

Venturing Program

Meet people from other Venture Crews and discuss program.


627 topics in this forum

    • 8 replies
    • 1k views
    • 37 replies
    • 3.3k views
    • 0 replies
    • 620 views
    • 3 replies
    • 766 views
  1. what is CAW

    • 9 replies
    • 1.2k views
    • 0 replies
    • 755 views
    • 0 replies
    • 710 views
    • 20 replies
    • 2.2k views
    • 28 replies
    • 2.6k views
    • 4 replies
    • 699 views
    • 4 replies
    • 1k views
    • 1 reply
    • 857 views
  2. Ready Crew

    • 4 replies
    • 910 views
    • 1 reply
    • 718 views
    • 9 replies
    • 1.1k views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Agreed. Our pack just says we are sponsored by the school and all of the duty to god adventures are done as a family. We say just either sign it in the book, on Scoutbook, or just let us know it is done. We have never had an issue with families baulking. 
    • Yes.  It is NOT the unit leader's job to second guess the MBC or the camp staff.  A unit leader after-the-fact second-guessing the camp staff / MBC sucks the life out of the scout.  It's an enthusiasm killer.   Camp staff often design accommodations to allow doing a MB in a camp setting and with a group.  The best example often is when a group is sampled for requirement "discuss" answers instead of requiring each and every scout to answer the question.  Other flexibility is done to focus on giving the scout a positive, rewarding experience while still teaching the content of the MB.   I'm absolutely okay with partials.  BUT, that's the choice of the MBC; not the unit leader.   A key point is the MBs are a council / district program.  MBs are NOT a unit program.   MBCs are council registered; not unit registered.     Unit leaders are absolutely NOT there to "monitor the specifics of the verbs" or second guess the MBCs.  That's a clear sign of overstepping boundaries.  Unit leaders need to focus on unit program quality.  If unit leaders don't like the MBC choices, then the unit leader lets their council know.  They do NOT take it out on the scout.  
    • Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, knot-tying with Cub Scouts. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-62968227
    • If you look at the issues with liability, oversight, and organizational structure, it's kind of the only model that makes sense from those perspectives.  A lot of units have reported getting dropped by church COs and shifting to community chartering orgs like American Legions and VFWs but those create new problems. For BSA to survive going forward, it has to more tightly manage the relationship with local units through its councils. A non council CO just adds a level of liability and extends the managerial length of arm. You can see why they might be heading in this direction if true. 
    • I have just reached out to Steve Schied who is involved on the national UMC Scouting committee in regard to this.  We have been offered charter with the Masons and also the facilities aggreement.  As has been discussed off and on, there is not complete confidence in LC sponsorship, especially with the idea of them owning our physical equipment and our bank accounts.  I will share his response when I receive it.  I also received an email from our church locally with what appears to be a similar opinion as stated in this recent comment.  I am not sure that there are absolutes with it, only recognition of the LC with facility as viable.  It would help if we were actually seeing the LC reach out to us directly, rather than just wait for us to move.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...