emb021

"the insignia may be allocated to either, the right pocket or the right chest. The oa feels that the right pocket is their domain, so it has been noted that the above the right pocket, above the interpreter strips can be temporary isignia, or on the right pocket. But, i believe, the temporary insignia can only be on one of the two locations." Sigh. This is so incorrect. The OA does NOT feel the right pocket is their domain. The right pocket is the normal location for temporary insignia. Always has been, always will be. The OA might feel the right pocket flap is their domain, but that's another issue. Above the right pocket is really only for Jamboree patches (and interpreter strips). Its ONLY a location for temporary insignia for female leaders (and I think then it was only if they were wearing the yellow blouse. not sure if this is so with the tan blouse).

FWIW, Scoutmastership Fundamentals was replaced by the current courses in 2001 or so. As noted, these courses are NOT mandatory. To be considered "Basic Trained" (needed to met quality goals for your unit) as a Boy Scout Leader, you must have completed NLE (now This is Scouting), position specific training, and Outdoor Leader Essentials. Basically they broke SMF into 3 courses. It has always been that if you completed training to be considered basic trained for the position you hold and you kept that position, that was good FOREVER. So if you are a Boy Scout Leader and you completed SMF, you are still considered "Basic Trained". You only need to take new training if you take a new position.

In my 10+ years with Venturing, I've long had to deal with trying to explain what Venturing is to other scout leaders. I was always a little surprised/annoyed that they saw it as a 'brand new program', when it was really just a continuation of the Exploring program that had been around for 2-3 decades, with some tweaks and changes. But because they only saw Exploring as a 'career awareness program' (no outdoor Posts, no church youth group Posts, no art/hobbies Posts), Venturing was all new. I've found that the worse Venturing leaders are those who were former Boy Scout leaders, and tried to run their Crew like a troop. Their idea of Venturing was that it was just 'advanced boy scouts with girls' as another person calls it. When I'm involved with Venturing training, trying to get across the difference of Venturing to other scouters always seems to take a lot of time. Topics like our different methods, uniforming policy, how we deal with advancement, crews specializing, all seem to throw many of these people for a loop. This doesn't mean that former BS leaders can't be good Venturing leaders, but they need to learn and undertand what Venturing is to make it a success. As to small crews. I found that its a combination of various things. Most troops rarely recruit. They seem to relay on a combination of feed packs, and other boys to may show up because they've heard of boy scouts. Crews don't have 'feeder troops'. Most do a poor job of promoting themselves, and it seems hard to even get them to understand this and do stuff like create flyers/brochures, run open houses and the like. Too often crews become a 'private club' for a set of youth, who then do little or nothing to get others to join, hence they are usually small and die. Those crews who do a better job of promoting themselves do grow and survive. Outdoor crews have always been a large percentage of crews. Outdoor/high adventure is a natural extension of Boy Scouting, and it was these sorts of units that made up the early Explorer Scout program. Your church youth groups make up your second largest group. Then you have a smattering of various other crews: indian hobby, re-enactment/living history, sports crews, various arts/hobby crews, etc. Specilization is great, but crews need to use this to sell themselves and attact youth who want to do what the crew does.

Until something does happen, I would say its a myth. The forest green shirt is fairly popular within Venturing. I don't see the value of getting rid of it in favor of the tan shirt. One reason I don't like the idea, is that it would make Venturing largely invisible amoung all the tan-shirted troops and such. Two different shades of green loops doesn't stand out too well...

I've yet to encounter anyone who thought that VOA meant "Venturing Order of the Arrow". National put forth the term "Teen Leader Council", which I personally don't care for, as it says nothing about Venturing. Most people like VOA because Venturing is part of the name, and it follows the prior Explorer Officers Associations that many councils had prior to Venturing. I've seen a variety of terms used, but VOA seems to be the most widely used. Many Areas and Regional have also formed VOAs, and someone has even made a patch for them, which is widely used.

"Robert Gates is the CIA Director?" He was the CIA Director, from 1991-93. He is currently Secretary of Defence, since 2006.

The only published information on VOAs in is the second edition of "Here's Venturing: Guide to Implementing Venturing in your District or Council" #33466A. I was told at PTC this past summer that a new edition was coming out, but I guess the National re-org has seriously delayed that. One of the courses at PTC also touches on VOAs, but not enough. You can also get on the various Venturing on-line forums and query people who have setup and run VOAs. There is no one way to setup a VOA. Different councils do it differently. There is no set name for them. VOA seems the most popular, but I have heard of YOA, TLC, VAC, and several others. VOAs ideally should be representative groups of Venturers from around the council, either made up of crew reps or district reps (if you have district VOAs). The VOA should take the lead in running the Venturing program within the council, such as coming up with Venturing activities and the like.

"I'm just amazed that there's a PTA out there still chartering BSA units." Why? AFAIK, that's not an issue. The issue was with Public Schools chartering units. PTAs are private orgs.

"So a council-run summer camp is going to continue at Goshen in non-Jambo years?" Well, AFAIK, its NCAC only summer camp. I would think they could still run summer camp programs during Jamboree years, as the Jamboree doesn't start until late July. So prehap the council summer camp would end by then. "I had though the camp would be converted into a true "National Scouting Center," open year-round for HA-type programs." My understanding is the HA stuff will be done out of another property in WV. This NSC @ Goshen would be just for the Jamboree and training center. I would think they could do this without affecting other camp uses. But am sure we'll learn more as we go along. I hope to find out more at the National Meeting coming up.

"Not to challenge the others here, in fact, for the most part, I subscribe to what they are saying. I agree that if there is a charter partner who has a particular interest, and they are in a position to reach out and recruit youth, this is a great way to start. I believe that the real long term success of most units is best when there is an active charter partner who is involved with the program. And an experienced scouter as the CoR is always a plus!" I have to agree. While many successful crews start off with a core group of youth and go from there, there is nothing wrong with a CO or a leader having a vision for a particular kind of crew, then working to find youth who want to be involved. It may take a little longer to get it off the ground, as you find said youth, but I think it could be worth the effort. Such a crew could have a focus on outdoors, conservation, and the like. They could work on earning the Hornaday Award (and other Venturing awards like Outdoor Bronze, Ranger, World Conservation Award, etc).

"Actually I was wondering if jambo troops maybe aren't a little more "boy led" than many typical troops? After all, here you have a group of pretty experienced, competent, and trained leaders who actually should all "get it" in terms of how the program is supposed to work, patrol method, a real PLC and all that. That is not always the case in a regular troop but my experience is that boys are a cautious lot and tend to think the way "their troop" does things is the only way - until or unless they experience something different. And maybe being in a provo Jambo troop gives them that different perspective sometimes." Well, I went to my first Jamboree as a boy, but was just a member of a patrol, not a junior leader. For the travel to/from the Jamboree, it was more adult run, but you kind of had to expect that. While we where at the jamboree, the junior leaders were more running things. Other then making sure the troop was where they were supposed to be, the adults really didn't do much during that time. My own experience has been that if a boy's troop is poorly run, going thru an experience like Jambo, or even attending a well-run NYLT may get him to understand how a troop can and prehaps should be run. Whether he can make that change in his troop if the adults won't let him is another thing. (some adults may get the same experience in a well run WB course, but there's no guarantee of this...)

Biggest problem I see is that Venturing Crews (not "Venture crew") must follow BSA membership policies regarding religious belief and homosexual behavior. This is usually a major issue for government bodies to be Charter Orgs for BSA units (which was why we moved Exploring to Learning for Life). If its this "Friends of the Refuge" who will be the Chartering Org, and they don't have an issue with following these BSA membership policies, I think it sounds like a good idea.

"Maybe it is time to get rid of the B & G and become Scouts? A lot of countries do not have "Boy" or "Girl" Scouts just Scouts. An example is Scouts de Bolivia. "For those that feel that "history matters", the founders of Scouting have the Scouts Association of the UK." In SOME countries this has happened, but not all. In some countries, Scouting is for boys, Guiding is for girls. In some countries (UK and most commonwealth nations), Scouting has gone co-ed, BUT Guiding still exists as a separate program for just girls. In some countries, Scouting & Guiding have merged into one organization. The BSA tried to get GSUSA & Camp Fire Girls to merge with them back in the late 60s/early 70s. Never happened. What may happen may be like what happend in the UK: the BSA will finally go fully co-ed and GSUSA will still exist as a separate organization.

Its one of those things that do to PC attitudes is no longer 'acceptable'. You see this were terms like "pledge", "rush", etc, in college fraternities can't be used, due to issues of hazing and such. 'tap' and 'tap out' has also been affected.

"Even if National changes the policy, there isn't anything that prevents a group of neighborhood kids from going camping on their own, as long as their parents give permission. Just leave the uniforms at home. What do you lose by doing that? Secondary insurance?" If all those 'neighborhood kids' are members of the same troop, that would be seen as an 'unofficial event', and those of us aware of risk management issues, there is no such thing. You got several members of the same group doing something, its seen as an event of that group. I'm dealing with that with a college group I advise. Some members went off on their own and had a little party with drinking, and the school administration is treating it like it was a group event. Their attitude: 3 people from the same group, its a group event. It's little different from a troop trying to get around the prohibition on paint ball or laser tag. It won't work.

Working with getting VOA (Venturing Officer Associations) going in 2 councils, expecting the youth to be responsible for organzing them is a little naive. You need adults to drive their formation and help them get going. BUT, you have to have adults who understand Venturing and will allow the Venturers to properly run the VOA. It very hard to get venturers to step up and being VOA members, even more so getting the really good ones. Now, my view on the wearing of silver loops by youth is that I would ONLY expect the VOA officers (either district or council) to wear them (and expect them not to wear unit numbers, if possible), not every member of the VOA (because I view VOA as representative groups formed of members from every crew/ship). Others may disagree, but I don't think its important enought to argue about. Since your daughter IS serving as your council's rep to the regional forum (or regional voa), one could argue that she could wear the silver loops. While you certainly don't need my permission or anyone elses, I won't have a problem of her doing so. If your regional forum is formed of council reps, I think all of them should wear silver loops, even if they don't have council VOA. I would think that regional forum officers can wear gold (the regional & area venturing presidents do).

"I don't know about white-tie events. But regularly in the EagleLetter, there are fellow Eagle Scout family members and friends posing with the newest Eagle." I would think those were done in the context of an ECOH. I do see people who attend formal Boy Scout events in suit and tie and wear their Eagle medal and prehaps other medals. I think that's normal, and I think others here would probably agree. But it sounds like he is speaking of a non-scouting, formal event. I would find it very strange if someone wore an Eagle medal at such events, and so this is why many of us recommended the lapel pin instead.

BadenP- I would recommend you stop assuming my level of involvement in the Venturing program, as well as my level of knowledge.

I rarely see the Eagle medal outside of BSA functions. (adults CAN wear the Eagle medal at formal BSA events, like council banquets, etc). Like others said, the Eagle lapel pin would be a better choice.

I'd go with Eagle92. Its important what your charter says in terms of continuous existance as a chartered unit. That is your determination of what (if any) veteran unit bar you can wear.

"I understand that Venturing crews can devise their own uniforms - they can use the official grey shorts, or they can simply use other grey slacks, or they could opt to do something completly different for their uniform pants - that's their right as a crew and is part of the Venturing program. Venturing crews have freedom with what they can wear, however do they have the freedom to use parts from other BSA uniforms however they want?" Ok, the mistake you're making here is one that too many make in regards to Venturing uniforms. You hear 'a crew decides their uniform' and you stop listing to the rest of the uniforming policy for Venturing. While, yes, the crew decides their uniform, there are some ADDITIONAL rules they need to understand AND FOLLOW. Its not so 'anything goes' as some think it is. The recommended uniform is the green venturing shirt and charcoal gray shorts. Nothing says that they get to pick other color pants. If they could pick other colors, why even state a color? The tan BSA uniform is NOT permitted for Venturers to wear. So, NO, a Venturer can NOT wear any Boy Scout uniform parts. (Cub scout parts would be silly, because they wouldn't fit). Also, when they wear the green shirt, they MUST following the Insignia Guide for patch placement. I quoted the full statement in an earlier post. Did you read and understand it? If not, I recommend you go read my Uniform FAQ (available at the National Venturing Cabinet site).

Well, if your speaking of old/incorrect videos, there was a time when they were speaking about Varsity Scouting, and the first background video as part of this is showing Boy Scouts with the current uniform (olive green loops). A few seconds later they finally showed Varsity Scouts with orange/blaze loops.

"I know the COR has to be the one to remove a CC but can a troop "vote out" an Advancement chair ? If a parent willing to do the job was willing to "run" for the position and the CC held an election for the position, the troop would have the opportunity to replace the problem volunteer who is currently in the position." thing is, there are no elections within the troop committee. The CC is picked by the COR. The CC then picks the members of the committee and their role. And the CC can thus remove anyone from their role as well.

Let's see. Neither Goodman or Edson were Masons when they formed the OA. I know that Goodman LATER became a Mason, no idea about Edson. AFAIK, our rituals never had a 'blood covenant'. AFAIK, the Brotherhood was NEVER called the "Blood-Rite" degree. We originally didn't have 3 'degrees'. That came later. The OA has changed it rituals over the years. ALL the rituals were re-written in 1948. Am uncertain if they've been re-written since (vs minor tweakes). So getting bent out of shape over pre-1948 rituals seem a little silly. I glanced over his list of similiarities between the OA rituals and masonic ones. I wonder how many might match with KoC? I know many match with my fraternities, but know that others don't match. Considering we have a National Catholic Committee on Scouting, and THEY don't seem to have a problem, who is this guy to pitch a fit?

My understanding is that one of the main issues that certain Christian groups have with the Masons aren't so much their rituals, but the oath of secrecy which they must make. I know that these same groups don't have issues with my Fraternity (which has rituals) and the OA because we DON'T have such oaths.