emb021

A comment, which I wonder if this may have been part of the problem. In looking over Dr. Missoni's bio, I have to wonder why he was hired to be the Secretary General of WOSM? His prior work was as a doctor. I don't see that he had any job experience or skill set that would qualify him to be the chief administrative officer of a non-profit. Here in the US, someone seeking such a position would usually be expected to have training (appropriate college degree etc) and/or experience in this area, expecially if one was to take on the position for larger such organizations. Dr. Missoni may be a great guy, but if he didn't have the requesit skills/knowledge, this may have been part of the problem.

"It is just interesting to see that the least bit of criticism about the ways the BSA took is immediately perceived as America bashing." I think its more of HOW the BSA has been criticized, as opposed to THAT its been criticized. I don't care for comments about 'the Yanks did this' or the 'the Yanks did that'. Nonsense. The BSA leadership made this decision, right or wrong. Don't make the assumption that all of us in the BSA were involved in this decision. And btw, I'm not a 'Yank'. I'm from the South, thank you very much.

"Perhaps WB21C came about because the powers that be recogized that other adult leaders were being left out, and instead of spawning WB specific courses for them, decided to re-tool WB into one generic leadership/relationships course. " It quite obvious (to me anyway) that that is exactly why it was rolled out. Prior to WB21C, you had Boy Scout Leader WB, Cub Scout Trainer WB, and Varsity Scout WB. Everyone else was left out. Sea Scout leaders created Sea Badge (and while its a great course, its not QUITE 'WB for Sea Scout leaders'). Out West, Explorer leaders created "Explorer Leader Institute" (but obviously, if you weren't out west, you were SOL). While it might have been a good idea to consider program-specific WB courses (all based on a set of standard training materials, but tailed for each program), it would have been problematic. As noted before, does a person who moved from program to program have to retake WB? What happens to a person in a council were, say, the council is weak on Venturing and may not have the ability to do a 'Venturing WB'. They would either be SOL or may have to travel to another council (or even another state) to take it. The patrol method is still a big part of WB. WB was always meant to be an advanced leadership course, not so much an advanced outdoor course. If there is a need for an advanced outdoor course (and personally I think it is needed), develop one (or add it to Powder Horn or the like).

Dr. Missoni has a new letter at his site addressing some of the concerns raised by the BSA and WSF (but NOT all the issues raised in the original Open Letter). Some comments. He still seems to want to put forth the idea that all this occured 'without warning' and 'all of a sudden'. IMO, the Open Letter shows to me this are issues that have been around for awhile, and certainly the BSA letter points out that the issues raised have been going on for a few years. (eolesen points this out in his quotes...) He defines the 'World Scout Scientific Congress'. IMO I have no idea what this event, regardless of how great it was, as anything to do with world scouting... He defends the idea the new WOSM HQ in Geneva, but seems to focus on the issue of owning a place vs renting. I don't think that's the issue. I think most people would agree that owning vs renting is a better option. The concern seems to be about buying/building a reasonable place, not spending money on an extravengency, which he doesn't address. He defends the issue of the budget delays, but that sort of thing is beyond me. He defends the issue of Picarquin, but like his defense on the new WOSM HQ, I really don't think he did a good defense on the real issues here. He also defends the issues raised of 'licensing World Scout Centers', the 'tax' on world events, and the issues with the Annual Report. Don't know what to comment about this areas. Some further general comments. Like any professional manager of a non-profit, the SecGen is supposed to do what is set down for him by the WSB (or whatever group is the equiv of an Exec Committee). There is always the issue of such a person going beyond their job scope, and in most groups, depending on what this was either the person is let go/fired or just repremended. This would also depend on how well the WSB is really doing in watching the professional WOSM staff. Keep in mind that most BSA Scouters probably have no idea of what all is going on, and who knows who within the BSA was involved in the decision of this letter. I doubt our International Commissioner acted alone in this, and would think that members of the BSA Exec Board were part of this. But the rest of us, if it wasn't for the various on-line resources, would be unaware of all this. (I know I would have been, there is nothing on the BSA website about this, and I certainly don't expect to read about any of this in Scouting magazine). I would thus recommend our overseas Brother scouts/scouters to keep in mind that 99.99% of the BSA membership had no hand, right or wrong, in what has gone on here.

"If Cubmasters, Committee Chairs, Venturing Advisors, District Chairs, etc. need a business management formula so badly, then have them earn a "Ph.D." in the University of Scouting." Not a suitable answer. University of Scouting is not a Nationally mandated training program. It varies greatly from council to council. My home council has a well organized UoS where you can earn Bachelor, Masters, Post Grad, and Doctoral degrees (which I did), but other councils in my area do NOT run their UoS like that. For most its just a weekend of supplemental training. While the training I got at UoS, it pales in comparison to Wood Badge. And again, why deny Cubmasters, Committee Chairs, Venturing Advisors, District Chairs, etc Wood Badge? B-P did NOT create Wood Badge as 'just for Scoutmasters'. He had WB for Cub Scout leaders, Boy Scout Leaders, Senior Scout/Rover leaders, etc.

"So far, the only things I've even seen regarding the SG's side are that this was an unethical and unprecedented abuse by BSA. But that's it. Nothing else to substantiate or even defend any of the criticisms in the original letter from any of the national organizations who signed the original open letter." That's my take as well, after reading over much of the materials. There are a LOT of issues pointed out in the Open Letter (Oct 15 letter). These point to organization issues that most likely some have attempted to have addressed for some time, but with little results. While we may condemn the actions of the BSA, WSF, Sweden, et al, it may well have been that these groups felt that was the only thing they could do to make the changes they felt needed to be made to address the serious issues they felt existed. The fact that most of the 'other side' seems to want to focus on the WHAT was done by the above groups, instead of the WHY it was done, does NOT IMO make the case for the 'other side'. If all Dr. Missoni is going to do is **** and moan about what the BSA et al did instead of the issues raise, that IMO does not make his case. Address the issues pointed out by the Open Letter. While we can say all we want about the high ideals of scouting, people are people, and organizations are organizations. Too often those at the higher level of organizations lose sight of the real purpose of the organization, and if the structure of the organization is such that changes are very hard to make, then that just makes it all the much worse.

helper2 Truth is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth. All the stuff I've seen on-line is taken from the now former SG's side. You seem to think we should accept on faith that the BSA et al acted improperly, etc. I've been involved in enough organizations to be a bit skeptical of all that. Is what the BSA & other done the right thing? Don't know. Was what the SG and other done the right thing? Don't know. We don't have the full facts. The truth of the matter may very well be something in between. Don't make the assumption that the BSA was bad, and Mr Missoni was right/good. the reality is usually something different.

"I'll try but I need you to work on all of the adults who refer to Venture Scouts which includes the chairman of the Council's committee on venturing. " there are several of us on-line who try to point out the correct terms. It's sad that many of our fellow venturing leaders don't educate themselves on the correct terms. (and many other aspects of the prorgam) If you're council venturing chair doesn't know and use the correct terms, one has to wonder how knowledgable he really is on the Venturing program. (sadly, I've met a few council venturing chairs that weren't that knowledgable) You have to wonder why such a person was given that position? As a reward/recognition for past works or because they were really knowledgable/passionate about the program??? (ie, did they really put the right person in that position??)

The problem with the "WB should just be for Boy Scout Leaders" is it leaves the rest of us out in the cold. When I took WB, there were 2 WBs: Boy Scout Leader WB (which I took) and Cub Scout Trainer WB. Everyone else (Explorer Leaders, Cub Scout leader who weren't CS Trainer, anyone district/council level who weren't involved in Boy Scouts, etc) were SOL when it came to WB. When the Varsity Scout program was rolled out, there eventually developed Varsity Scout WB. Sea Scout leaders would develop on their own Sea Badge. While Sea Badge is pretty good, and has some elements of WB, its not quite 'WB for Sea Scouter'. Even if you where to made WB be more specific to Boy Scouting, you would still leave out Cub Scouters and Venturing leaders.

""Nothing stopping boys who want to do Boy Scouting Advancement to continue on in their troop, which is the proper place for Boy Scouting Advancement." "The proper place? If that was the case, then it wouldn't be allowed through Venturing. Could it be that Beaver's wisdom is greater than the gods in Texas? " The allowing Venturers to work on Boy Scout advancement is a continuation of policies in place since the 1930s that allowed boys in the various Senior Scout programs to earn Boy Scout advancement while in a Senior Scout unit. They even provided paths for boys who had never been Boy Scouts to earn Star/Life/Eagle after earning specific Senior Scout advancement. Also, the term is "Venturing Crew". Please stop calling them "Venture Crews". That's incorrect and confusing with Venture Patrols.

The history of all this is covered at my website: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/8826/ Basically, from early on, the BSA looked for new programs more appropriate for older youth (ie 14/15 and up). Sea Scouts came first in 1912. The program we know today as Sea Scouts started around 1925. In the 1930s, they expanded this under the umbrella of "Senior Scouts" with the Explorer Scouts, Air Scouts, and Rover Scouts, along with the already existing Sea Scouts. Explorer Scouts was an advanced outdoor program, Air Scouts was the aviation counterpart the nautical Sea Scouts. Rover Scouts was for 18+ youth to do service. In the mid 1940s they gave the Explorer Scouts forest green uniforms and a more formal 4-level advancement program leading to Ranger Scout. In 1949, the Senior Scout program was revamped into the Explorer program. Explorer Scouts became Explorers, and got a new 4-level program leading to the Silver Award. Air Scouts became Air Explorers, Sea Scouts became Sea Explorers. Also during this time, the idea of Explorer Posts having a specific focus or speciality became more the norm. Pre-career exploration became a big part of it, as the Explorer program had been transformed from being an advanced outdoor/scout program into a more general older boy program. In 1959 the Explorer program became Exploring. Gone was the advancement program, as well as the Post organization that followed scout troops. Now Posts would have club officer titles like President, and such. The navy blazer uniform was provided as an alternate to the forest green. Even more so then in the 50s, Post specialities was the norm. In 1965 Air Explorers was killed off as a special program, and changes to Sea Explorers allowed youth to be 'Sea Explorers' without using the traditional Sea Scout advancement, uniform, program, etc. Into the 70s and 80s, Exploring became to most people a pre-career program, such that the idea of high adventure posts or church youth group posts or the like was to many people unthinkable (dispite the fact that such groups DID exist, and in increasing numbers). Of course, issues with the BSA membership policies started to become a problem in the 90s. This didn't help that many of the career-oriented Explorer Posts (Fire, Law Enforcement, Law, etc) were charted to government bodies. The BSA was faced with a choice of either killing off the very successful career-oriented Exploring program, or doing something. Which they hurriedly did in 1998. So what they did was move the career Exploring Posts (along with the name "Explorer" "Exploring" "Explorer Post", etc) to its Learning for Life corporation. What was left behind, the outdoor, sports, arts/hobbies, religious life Explorer Posts, along with Sea Explorers, became the new Venturing program. (and Sea Explorers got their old name of Sea Scouts). The new Venturing program was actually already being developed for Exploring (being built around the already existing Exploring G.O.L.D. Award, which became the Venturing Gold Award), so they were quickly rolled out for the new Venturing program. So as noted, Venturing, while to some is a 'new' program soon to be 10 years old, is really a program rooted in several decades of programs going back to the 1930s and beyond. By and large, the current LFL/Exploring program is really just an offshoot of these programs that got its start in the 1950s.

Exploring vs Venturing. Some things to keep in mind. Explorers are no members of the BSA. Depending on the situation with the chartering org, this can be good or bad. Depending on what the youth want, this can be good or bad. Exploring is a career-oriented program. LFL/Exploring provides a wealth of materials to support several career focused type of Explorer posts, including Fire, Law Enforcement and more. For some groups (LE and Fire), this included national conferences and more. Venturing is NOT career-oriented. Its focus is on outdoors, sports, religious life, arts/hobbies, and Sea Scouts (which is why there are 5 different Bronzes). Can you have a Venturing Crew for junior fireman? Yeah, but its problematic. The program support for such a group exists, but not under Venturing, it's under Exploring. And if the charter org is the local fire department, that can be a problem due to the membership policies of the BSA as regarding gays and atheists. This is one of the main reasons such units should be LFL/Explorer Posts and not Venturing Crews. If those junior fireman want to keep their BSA registration and work on BSA advancement, that's fine, but they should do it thru a unit not associated with the local fire department. Do their firefighting stuff thru a LFL/Explorer Post focus on firefightning. Do their scouting stuff (advancement, OA membership) thru a separate Venturing Crew.

"Of course it could be that the boys want to work on advancement but I've sure that Beaver would never believe that could be possible." Actually, it is possible. I know of a crew that was formed because Venturers (both boys and girls) wanted to work on Venturing advancement, and the advisor of their current crew refused to let them. The thing to keep in mind is that 'advancement' is not a method of Venturing. Unlike in a Pack or Troop, you don't really build your Crew program around earning advancement. As adults we should make sure the Venturers are aware of the awards (and what they can do to earn them), encourage the Venturers to earn them, and use 'stealth advancement' (show them what they had already completed thru crew activities, such that they know what extra work they need to do to earn the award). But we should not be harrasing the Venturers to earn them, or building the crew program around earning them (unless its the youth who want this).

"Why do we need so much parental involvement in youth activities today?" My personal experience as a kid is similiar to GW's. What I see today appears to be caused by two things: * some parents seem to be reliving their childhood thru their kids, usually to the detriment of their kids. * some parents, prehaps because their own parents weren't as active in their childhood, seem to be over compensating with their own kids. Too many parents aren't willing to let their kids be kids, to step back and let their kids have fun, and do what they (the kids) want to do. I think too often parents impose what they want (for whatever reason) over what their kids want. (ex: the parents that push their kids into sports because of some mythical quest for a sports scholarship/career, instead of letting their kid play because they enjoy it, or letting them drop it because they don't enjoy it)

"Don't know which part of Illinois your from but up here in Chicago Area Council we are told in no uncertain terms that staff must pay their own way. A budget is required and it must show that the participants are not being charged for staff food or materials. This is for WB NYLT or any other official training. We are also told to include a 10% to 15% "cushion" in our fees to accommodate unforeseen expenses. Going in the red is very bad. So having money left over can be seen as the goal. " What you state is pretty standard for all scouting courses everywhere. We are expected to have a budget for any training course, even for a 4-5 hour one. Staff always pays to cover their expenses, and the 10-15% contingency fee is usually mandated by all councils. Most CDs prefer to break even, to keep the fees low for the participants, then to make money for the council.

"Also, my Council's Wood Badge is not a 7-day deal, it is 4 days plus a Patrol meeting(s) in between." The standard way Wood Badge is delivered is either as a 7 day course OR as a 2 3-day weekend course (all day Friday-Saturday-Sunday). Which way is available to you is up to your local council. Regardless, the costs would be the same, and the amount of time spent is the same. "And I do not understand most anything about Wood Badge. The paperwork I have is vague. I know there are many experienced Scouters on this message board who have been to Wood Badge. So I wanted more information. " The best people to answer your questions about Wood Badge would be the people in your council putting it on. They can help you understand what you need to do to be prepared for it, what are the eligibility requirements (basically be "basic trained" for your position in scouting, whatever that may be), and as you have so many questions about costs, they can explain to you what the breakdown of the costs are. Having being a Wood Badge staffer and seen the breakdown, there is very little 'fluff' in WB budgets. And even if you removed it, I don't see it making a big difference in the final cost. No one is making out like a bandit and making a lot of money. Again, in comparison with other training available in other organizations, WB is a bargain. For instance, a week of technical training in my field will cost me about $2000-3000, and that doesn't include any meals or housing.

"The cost of Wood Badge seems to run between $150 and $300. That's expensive to me. So are other training courses outside of the BSA. I am not saying it's not worth it, I am just curious as to who teaches these courses and why the cost is what it is. " $150-300 for a weeks worth of training is not that expensive. I am not aware of other, similiar training courses outside of the BSA costing the same. Most of what I have seen are a LOT more expensive, getting into a thousand or several thousand. For instance, I just got a notification from my university of a 2 day business course for $800. This would not include housing, food, etc. "In my Council it looks like what's covered in the cost of Wood Badge are "food, training materials, a hat, copyright fees, supplies, insurance and recognition." They do the training on 2 weekends, and it's held in the park our Council owns. Anyway, I was just curious what costs actually cover. Maybe my question needs to go to my Council instead. " Well, you kind of answered your own question. Wood Badge costs are based on: * food. 3 meals a day for 7 days. * training materials. cost of notebook, handouts, etc. * hat. $5 or so. Most courses also have a t-shirt. * copyright fees. About $10-15 per person to cover copyrighted materials being shown. * supplies. other supply costs then what is covered above. * insurance. all councils include insurance fees, camping fees, etc. * recognition. cost of any recognition items. WB neckerchief, etc. Wood Badge is for ALL scouters. As noted, there are Wood Badge Scholarships to help scouters who can't pay attend. Some units may also help defray costs. "And yes there is such a thing as Cedar Badge." That is your local council's name for NYLT. 'Cedar Badge' is not the national name for this course.

"I am curious... as it is extremely expensive. It costs as much to go to a business management seminar in some cases." Excuse me, but Wood Badge is NOT 'extremely expensive'. Most courses run around $200. This is for 2 weekends or 1 week of training. You're lucky to get a couple of hours of business management seminar training for that amount of money. Equivalent business seminars to Wood Badge will run you 4 figures! "Also what about Cedar Badge for youth? It's almost as much as WB! There's probably a handful of boys in our Unit that have gone to CB. One never wants to be SPL, one never shows up, a third never applies his knowledge, etc. It seems like something too expensive to send people to who aren't ready to get something out of it! " Uh, there is no such thing as "Cedar Badge". The program for youth is called National Youth Leader Training (NYLT). Cost is about the same, around $200 for a week of training. Do you have any concept of what the cost of these courses are or what they are paying for? They pay for the participants food and various supplies. "But since I am not eligible for either (I think), I was curious if it's volunteers or professionals who teach these courses. If volunteers, why in the world does it cost so much to go?" Wood Badge and ALL Scouting training is given by volunteers. The BSA (and its councils) make LITTLE or NO money on the courses. Where are you getting this idea of high expense??? Most courses are break even, maybe make a little money (as a contingency fee). Biggest costs are food and supplies (handouts etc). Staff don't get paid, and most themselves do pay a fee to cover THIER costs (food, etc).

"Personally, my discretionary income budget does not always include an extra $300 (plus other expenses) for scout training, no matter how "worth it" it might be - and I'm not doubting the value, I just have plenty of more urgent places to spend $300+ sometimes." Check to see if your council has a WB scholarship. Some do. In a couple of councils I work with, they hold a few WB gatherings and the proceeds from the sale of WB stuff &/or breakfast (if there is a WB breakfast) goes to fund a WB scholarship. Some units are willing to cover all/part of the cost of WB for its leaders. (usually paid once your ticket is complete) Some Charter Orgs may do the same. I believe the AFL-CIO may have WB scholarships. Other groups might do the same.

Uh, as they haven't even selected a design, who knows when patches would go out? Frankly I would not expect anything for another year or so. I wouldn't expect anything until maybe 2009.

"I've never seen the red vest anywhere but in a Cub Scout context" Not surprising. Yet another example of a clothing item that was originally for one program slowly getting coopted by another to the point were people think it only belongs with the other program... In the past it was very common for Boy Scouts and leaders in many parts of the country to wear patch vests (sometimes called 'hoedown vests'). Nowadays its rare and some think its only a Cub scouting thing. The 2007 Insignia Guide is current, so what you quoted is accurate, and been in place for about 5-10 years or so. (wasn't when I was a youth). Its important to note what the Guide says is 'temporary insignia' that can go back there. Too often you see scouts putting stuff like the Historial Trails Award patch or their uniform or the sash, when that is equipment decoration. (some just don't get it). Also, jackets are ok, but people should not turn their red BSA jackets into 'patch jackets' like some do. There are only a limited number of patches that go on the official jacket, but too often you'll see someone who has covered their jacket in patches (front, back, sleeves, etc).

First off, the title of thread makes no sense: "Is there an equivalent of the "red vest" for Boy Scouts?" the red vest IS for Boy Scouts! Another option is the patch blanket. Also, Scouts CAN now wear temporary patches (ONLY event patches) on the back of the merit badge sash. This wasn't always the case, but in recent years this was quitely added to the merit badge sash rules in the Insignia Guide. Please note that this does NOT include past rank patches or various 'other' awards.

First off, I have to say I find it hard to believe an 18 year older scouter would be considered for a DAM. The DAM recognizes several years of adult service at the district level, usually by adults serving at the district level, but could go to a unit scouter. As you have yet to be an adult scouter for even a year, it seems inappropriate to present one to you. Anyway. At to knots. Myself I wasn't able to earn any youth awards that had knots, so all my knots have been for adult awards. Several of them are important to me, because they were awards that others have presented to me. One was the Venturing Leadership Award, which was a surprise to receive. The other was the Herbert Horton APO Service to Youth Award, which is a Community Organization Award. Having worked hard to help create this award, I was pleased to receive it myself in the second year it was presented.

FWIW, in my area, most Lodges have 1 or 2 'make up' Ordeals for those people who, for whatever reason, missed Ordeal. If Lodges in other areas are not doing so, prehaps they should consider it. It could be as simple has having a small group going thru Ordeal at a subsequent lodge weekend event.

"the Sea Badge knots are actually 3 separate knots" Actually, National only issues one official knot. Its got a small trident in blue on a gray background, and frankly, the 'knot' is slightly larger then all the other knots. Others have put out much nicer Sea Badge knots that are the right size, with larger tridents on white, tan, navy blue, and green for the different uniforms, and with 1, 2, and 3 tridents. As there are several Sea Scout people at a National level who put these out, these could be considered 'semi-official'.