Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/29/22 in all areas

  1. Is a program better of to stick with the BSA program (as trained), or change the program to keep youth interested? I realize this is a bit of an open-ended question. A general example is that National provides training and guidance that tells us the troop should follow certain procedures. When some of the youth in the troop don't want to do those things, they will complain often to parents who then give the SM an earful. In some cases, youth quit because the troop and patrol expects them to meet certain obligations and be responsible. Recently had a parent pull the kid out of the troop b
    1 point
  2. The simple answer is that BSA needs to stay out of the gun control debate because BSA is a non-partisan, non-profit. However, since you bring the topic up. There is no good gun legislation, period. We literally have the 2nd amendment because our former government tried to take our guns away while they had their boot on our necks. Here's an idea, BSA should reform the duty to country education in our programs to actually teach why George Washington, while considering himself a loyal British citizen turned his back on the crown, and led the Continental Army in a revolt. We can
    1 point
  3. Ask fifty different unit leaders this question, and you'll get fifty different opinions and ways of doing it 😜 We do one big fundraiser a year. The Troop splits the proceeds earned by each Scout 60-40. 60% goes to the Troop, 40% to the Scout. This is an incentive for Scouts to get out and support the fundraiser. About 75% of our Scouts do this. About 25% of our families choose our "buyout" option. That is, they can choose not to participate in the fundraising activity, and pay a set amount (I think last year's was $75) into the Troop general fund. A handful of our Scout
    1 point
  4. Are you serious? Several years ago BSA had a poll in which 94% of the respondents were either against (18%) or strongly against (76%) the proposal, yet BSA did it anyway. 94% OPPOSED AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY! (emphasis). National has repeatedly announced membership increases AT THE LAST MINUTE. One year they even told units to hold off on rechartering until they finalized the price. People repeatedly complained because units had already created budgets, and round ups were going on. Again, National was told repeatedly to give more notice to help the boots on the ground prepare, especially t
    1 point
  5. A related issue is what to call Venturing in the future. I believe "Venturing Scouts" or "Venture Scouts" is the way to go. We are probably going to brand the national organization and the current "Scouts BSA" program as simply the "Scouts" after the bankruptcy and GSUSA cases are concluded. It makes no sense to have any of our programs not expressly identified as "Scouts" in some manner.
    1 point
  6. Given ... Programs that partially work often do more damage than good. Always looking to simplifying the program. Existing challenge how to deal with scouts that turn 18. Crews would benefit from being attached to a troop. Continuity. Program. Equipment. Friendship. It also allows a structure to handle the youth transition into adulthood. A GSUSA leader taught that scouts often learned best when we think of learning as a progression of responsibility. I think it's true here too. Crews fail because of turnover (advisors and members). Being attached to a tro
    1 point
  7. Yeah, your number three option seems the best... Separate male and female patrols until they reach a certain age and rank (my gut says 14 and First Class, kind of like the requirement for Scouts to join and continue working on advancement.) Then combine into Venturing Patrol (name isn't important, but could be kept for legacy...)
    1 point
  8. The problem with "Calling National" is that they are only giving you the answer from the perspective of the "official" Youth Protection Violation report policy. So from that perspective they gave you a technically correct answer, but still didn't actually address your issue. Your CC isn't trying to conduct an official "Youth Protection Violation Investigation", they are doing a concurrent examination of the situation to see if immediate troop level action is required. National has only one button to push when it comes to Troop level leadership; they can pull a Scouter's membership. Nat
    1 point
  9. I find people often use the passive voice to hide... I always then ask the direct question, "Who told you?" If they can't give me name or point of contact, I ignore them. If they give me a name, I call the source (eliminate the middleman) and get the story straight. Nine times out of ten, what person A said and what person B heard are two entirely different things.
    1 point
  10. I'm going to agree that, on it's face, this wasn't really a YP violation. It may well have been a "Bad Scoutmaster " situation, but not a Youth Protection violation. A single incidence of being mean or rude or unkind isn't "Bullying", it's just being unpleasant. Telling your son "that shirt isn't appropriate for the activity and you need to change" is likewise not bullying. If the Scoutmaster encouraged the other boys to then be unkind to your son, that WOULD be bullying, but if the other boys were just pissed at your son for taking up 45 minutes of their time over not changing
    1 point
  11. In a Scout troop, everyone pulls his weight and does his/her share of the work. BP said, "Never do anything for a Scout that a Scout can do for himself." hat's the program. No, I don't think it should be changed.
    1 point
  12. Our patrol duty rosters look like whatever the patrols wat them to look like, it's not an adult function. For the most part they slot in two cooks, two scouts for clean-up, maybe somebody on water if we have to haul it from somewhere. I'm not sure about twiddling thumbs, but there's no reason for everybody to be busy for the sake of being busy. The rest of the patrol can be kicking a ball, playing cards, just goofing off, or maybe even the dreaded "working on requirements."
    1 point
  13. @FireStone Haven't heard that rumor. Was it the Program was going away in that no more NOVA or Super NOVA awards? It could be the STEM Scouts program is what they are talking about. IMO, The STEM scout program was another attempt to grow membership by appealing to the non-outdoors types. These youth did not do a traditional program...basically live in the labs doing experiments. Not sure they were even allowed to earn the NOVA awards. I saw that their registration fee was around $200/yr. Of course the flip side to this is that there will be another Eagle required MB called
    1 point
  14. Once again we are experiencing the pain and suffering of a warped society with children killed in Texas. Most of us understand it is not the weapon itself, but the individual that uses it, that is the challenge. But, for whatever reason, and I personally lay it at the feet of the politicians on both "sides", nothing changes. Meanwhile, we see the BSA under continuing siege to be eliminated due to legal and emotional drama brouoght on by a very small group of sick members of society and some very poor reactions of BSA leadership. My point is not that the abuse issue in BSA
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...