fred johnson

To be honest ... I see this as a great thing. I've been involved in scouting since 2000 ... one year after Dale v. BSA. I've been through too many years where the outside world viewed BSA as a pariah with discrimination and abuse. Teachers throwing away recruitment brochures. Schools pushing scouts out. Plus, year after year public relation catastrophes caused by selective membership, abuse or scouts denied Eagle because of faith. IMHO, I look forward to this time. While many will be frustrated, I think scouting will be rejuvenated in the long run. I pray scouting always has a strong faith component. I hope charter orgs can always influence the membership of their units and how their units execute the program. I just think this generally will be a great time to be a scout.

IMHO, this co-ed change is a great opportunity for BSA to address the many problems with venturing. In some ways, I can't see BSA incorporating girls earning Eagle without re-doing Venturing.

I've seen units try to work together for years. It's always mixed results. IMHO, it's an all or nothing thing when units start to work together. If the unit ever grows large enough that the troop needs to split, I can see that being managed easier. But to start working together, I'd recommend facing the music and choosing one of the troop numbers, one SM, One SPL, one meeting place. Merge the gear, calendar, agenda and bank accounts. It's really the only way to produce a commitment to work together. Otherwise, what happens is one of the three units will take ownership to run an event / campout / activities. One or two of the other units will not be as enthused and/or committed. As such, they may not attend or follow through. IMHO, it's good to take three units that are 5 to 8 scouts and make one larger unit. The strength of numbers will help the scouts have a better experience. It's really just the "how" to make it successful.

Even if the program is designed with boys-only and girls-only dens, I could easily see packs have the same adult leader for both the same rank boy and girl dens. You can say "single gender" dens, but it can't be enforced. What I see is you will have "den 2" girls and "den 2" boys ... meeting at the same time ... doing the same things.

I just hope it's not a "different" program. The troop structure works and it's advancement works. Let girls join troops. Let charter orgs decide if they want girl only troops and boy only troops ... or co-ed troops. We're just not structured to run yet another program structure. Sort of like Venturing in that too few BSA volunteers really understand how to make venturing work.

So so true. Mine too

This is effectively what our troop does. My son and his friend effectively share the same tent for years now. My son brings it home, but the other scout brings other items. It's their tent for their use. When they age out, my son will keep the tent and the other kid keeps his stuff. But effectively, they acquired the tent together and use it all the time in scouts. The only effective policy I could imagine is having is Troop only stores troop gear. "Personal gear is brought home. Gear left or stored with the troop will be treated as troop gear." Personally, I can't imagine the teepee as always stored by the troop. It had to be going home to be dried out. I'm betting that was fairly regular. Probably did not return within a few days.

Your rational is exactly how I view things. Now that we know the troop supplies the tents for the scouts otherwise, I view it even more this way. The issue was probably created when the scouts want a different type of tent. The troop should have probably paid for it then and supplied it. Otherwise, it's the same as my son buys a better back pack for himself. It's still his backpack when he leaves the troop. Perhaps, the troop should reimburse the scouts for the expense retroactively.

Yeah, this is scouts and parents getting involved with their kid's activities. Reasonableness disappears quick.

In my son's current troop, they are expected to have their own tents. Often two scouts tent together for years. As such, they negotiate who's tent to use. I could see two smart scouts negotiating and splitting the cost of a single tent. I would love to see a patrol do the same thing. IMHO, that does not make it the troop's tent. QUESTION ... Original poster ... Where do the other tents for the troop come from? Do the scouts supply them or does the troop maintain an inventory of tents? I think this greatly affects the conclusion of the original situation.

My experience is the adults are often the bigger issue than the kids.

Ok. Then it really is "What lessons do you want to teach and what habits do you want to promote?" ... Think of it less of creating rules or guidelines or being clear. Scouting is a game with a purpose. So think of how to create lessons you want to teach. Personally, .... If one guy bought something to use for scouting, I'd be okay if they kept it after. If two guys pool their money to buy something they will use during scouts, I'd be okay with treating it was their own. If five guys pool their money to buy something, they will use during scouts I'd be okay with treating it was their own. I like the idea that they really think it's their stuff. As for "ownership", was the troop involved in it's acquisition? Did troop spend money fixing / repairing it? The troop may have stored it for years, but I've seen tennis shoes stored in the troop trailer for years until the owner claimed them. Ideally, I'd hope the scouts decided to donate their stuff to the troop. But I wouldn't force the situation. Just because someone uses something as part of scouts, it does not automatically become owned by the troop. One related thought ... Do you think this issue will really happen again? Scouting is filled with quirky situations. It's impossible to create rules and guidelines to handle them all. Worse, sometimes the process of creating rules to address recent situations and incidents just rehashes frustration and cements tension between people. I'd let time pass. If six months down the road you still think you need this rule, then address it then. Scouting often works best when we minimize situations specific rules

A few random thoughts. First - Congrats! I think it's great that patrols "own" gear. IMHO, that promotes patrol identity, pride and commitment. I always cringe when I hear scouts were "put into" a patrol. IMHO, scouts choose who they spend their time with. IMHO, it would be perfectly fine to have a patrol of two if that is all that is left. Even a patrol of one if he's the 17 year old scout and only scout left from his original patrol. But then he cooks for himself, tents for himself and pretty much runs his own program. He could function as a senior scout troop guide. IMHO, those two scouts have no right to ask patrol C to donate money for it. Where would the money go? Who figures out the numbers? Do you mail back the $50 to the previous members? Do you pro-rate based on usage, wear and remaining life? IMHO, the "parent" of the scout from patrol B has no say. Yes, it's his son's gear. He could be a pain and make things difficult. But really, it would defeat how the program works. The main question is who owns the teepee. Is it the scout's or the troop? What was discussed when the teepee was originally acquired? Personally, I like the idea of patrol gear. I'd want it treated as their personal gear. As such, I'd leave it up to the remaining original boys that purchased it. IMHO, it's their gear. If they agreed to spend their own money on it and use it for their purpose, it's theirs. If they want to donate it to the troop, fine. If they want to convince the others to purchase some "ownership" of the teepee, fine. If they want to take it away from the troop and keep it for themselves, fine. The main question may be "who owns the teepee", but you also have a key question. What lessons do you want to teach and what habits you want to promote?

So true. That's why I believe a co-ed version is the only one possible. Similarly, I don't think there are enough adults to "understand" a different parallel program. It would need to be the same requirements, structure, etc. We could not manage two different sets of requirements and program content.

I've been involved in Cub Scouts for years now, I really think that the "drop off" mode is not so bad if the parents really don't plan to be involved. I'd rather have that than have them in the back of the room hiding or on their phone. The challenge I see now is Cubs starts so young now that the cub has yet to learn basic personal skills to exist without their parent. And the den leader does not have the herding skill of a kindergarten or 1st grade teacher. IMHO, it's a reflection of starting cubs too young.

That's how I was taught too. One challenge is they need to all join at the same "join" event. If they trickle in, then it's an issue to get them all together at once. Plus they start participating or waiting to participate more. Once in that mode, it's hard to change whether they agree to be a leader. With the join all at once, it's the right thing to say pick a leader. If no one steps up ... which I've never seen ..., then it's not a den the pack wants.

3 palms immediately after his EBOR

You interpreted it right. I would also ask "What does it serve?" Learning opportunity ... I think there is a lesson here about how to treat other people. If the rules are "grey", do you interpret the rules in favor of the person or in favor of protecting the perceived value of something. It's a lesson about putting people ahead of rules when it can be interpreted either way. Positive experience ... I would think it would tarnish the Eagle celebration slightly by trying to argue he has not earned the palm. Congrats on Eagle, but oh you didn't earn the palm even though the next guy will get it based on the same criteria.

Then have that "Assistant" lay out a calendar of den meeting dates and assign one date to each parent. Ask that parent to find a place and advancement related item for their meeting. The assistant can coordinate everyone else running the den.

LOL ... Funny, but probably correct. Or use the new ScoutBook to get it recorded with BSA.

I strongly agree with you. I want to give the scouts large latitude. I find they behave better and I trust them more when I give them more freedom. Based on earlier comments, I think I'll know how to execute this so that scouts have significantly more freedom. Scouts need that freedom to grow.

Thanks for the comments. They help me think through what we'll do. Thank you !!!!

We are taking scouts camping at a state park. As with many parks, the park has both beauty and potential danger. Rivers. Small bouldering areas. Only cliffs are near some small waterfalls. Essentially, if the scouts exercise fair judgement, they will be safe. If the scouts want to be significantly less intelligent, they could get hurt. Does Guide To Safe Scouting require us to have adults with them as they explore the park ? What triggers us to require adults for day hikes ? I really really really want to give the scouts independence and freedom and to NOT baby sit them. Thoughts?

#1 What you did was absolutely fine. No criticism at all. You identified and represented your consideration. As a Eagle proposal reviewer and EBOR member, I'd be perfectly fine with it. #2 It says it in proposal page C ... To the right of the word "Supplies" ... Smaller italicized print. "Supplies are things you use up, such as food and refreshments, ...." It's not a big deal. I just spend a lot of time in the Eagle project proposal workbook.

I think UK has a great model for unit leadership. I am referring to encouraging unit leaders to be younger than a specific age. Scouts need leaders that are not parents of scouts in the unit. Cub Scouts is different, but the Boy Scout program is damaged by heavily involved family members that muddle the program and the experiences. A favorite example is the set of unit leaders that after a heavy intense rain rushed all the wet stuff to a local laundromat to be dried. While I applaud the energy and enthusiasm, they denied the scouts an important learning experience. . #1 That they can overcome adversity. They'd find a way to get through the night, hang up the wet stuff and survive. #2 That they don't need someone to rescue them. #3 That they should secure their tents better.