fred johnson

I have no knowledge of whether you can get registered again to help in scouting.  But I do have a few comments

- This is relatively recent.  Time needs to pass between the events and now to demonstrate it won't happen again.  It's only been a year since the conviction.  It's relatively recently.  

- Actions have consequences.  Some create valid questions of whether you should work with kids.  I'm not sure if this is one, but it may be.  It is hard to judge without knowing more ... and I don't want to know more.

- You will always be an Eagle scout and have completed your OA brotherhood level.  It defines you and it's something for you to live up to as a person.  You can still live your life by those values.

- There are many, many places you can still volunteer, help, build friendships and create new connections.  Churches.  Community groups.  Parks. 

Be open to new groups and new associations.  If you can't register with BSA, it is not the end of the world and it's hardly the worst thing that can happen to you.   

48 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

With all due respect, "linked troops" will be coed troops. Linked troops share everything: CO; committee; meeting night, time, and location; trips and activities; equipment; and ASMs. The only thing they cannot currently share is SMs. Even then some are saying that is a suggestion and not a requirement for "linked troops." That sounds like a coed troop to me, and all the volunteers I have talked too. It also sounds like a coed troop to the Boy Scouts I've talked to as well.

 

The difference is the rule / direction / guidance versus reality.  Reality, things will be co-ed.  Thus why I'm arguing there will be confusion.  The rule / direction / guidance is two separate troops; one for each gender.  

45 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I think separate boys and girls' troops does make sense when the majority of the current members, parents, and volunteers do not want a "linked troop."

"Linked troops" is not co-ed, it's two single gender troops under the same charter org.  Before, a charter org could have one troop.  Now the plan is two if they are single gender troops.  Thus the term "Linked Troops".

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

I'm not saying Charter Orgs can't succeed with single gender troops.  

I'm saying BSA will create a mess forcing the "Linked Troop" model.

For our charter org, they don't have enough calendar nights free or separate space to support a second scouting unit.  From our current sense, we "think" we won't have enough interest to have a strong separate program.  We think a combined unit with single gender patrols (our choice) would strengthen the existing unit and give new opportunities to girls.  We also have multiple adult leaders in the unit that have young girls that would like to try scouts.  

9 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

What is unique about scouting that renders us incapable of running a parallel program when other programs manage to do just that?

I agree with you.  It "can" work.  It needs more coordination.  I tried my best to use "many linked troops", but probably failed in places and left in a few absolutes.  

It can work so that's why I suggest BSA should let charter orgs choose how they want to structure.  COs choose single gender troops or mixed gender.  COs choose one troop or two troops.  etc etc.  This would allow your CO to have two completely separate single gender troops ... if that is how your CO wants to run it.  

The issue is when you have imbalances or want to share schedules, camps, leaders, etc.  It can be done, but for many charter orgs it just won't work.  They don't have the space or available nights or enough separate adults.

I was recently at a scout meeting where we were discussing how to make it work.  The discussion because very uncomfortable when a very reputable and capable adult leader who is a minority pointed out that "separate but equal" isn't such a good idea.  None of us wanted to be on the other side of the discussion.  

3 minutes ago, cchoat said:

All boy/all girl patrols would work for YPT purposes, but I see them also being "optional" in the future as well.

Agreed.  BSA would do best by letting units structure was they can make it work.  

• BSA could suggestion single gender patrols are a possible choice.  It helps address different maturity levels.  But it's not required, especially if it means a scout is left out because there are not enough members of their gender. 
• BSA could suggest single gender troops would be an option if it servers your charter org best.  

I just fear requiring it either leaves people out or forces a lot of extra work and extra confusion.

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

I would never think a linked troop would need double the SPL, QM, PLC etc... But, you are right. This concept, as they've  penned it, sets a high bar for COs who want to involve girls. 

The concept will keep evolving, but I'm trying to work through how to make it work based on what I've heard so far.

QM ... Missed that one.  One set of equipment.  Which QM is responsible for the equipment?   Or does a church need two troop trailers?  etc etc ?

9 minutes ago, FireStone said:

...  it sounds like we could effectively show up at a Scout Shop and have advancement verified via computer, so no more delays in getting badges. In theory, at least. 

Yeah, but you have to show up at the scout shop.  If you have 25+ meetings a year, that's a lot of driving to and from the scout shop.  Four COHs are manageable.  25+ will never happen.  It's why I recommend stockpiling in advance.

The ideal is to recognize as soon as possible.  Position patches should be given as soon as possible so the scout has the patch during his tenure in the position.   Another example is rank patches.  Hand them out ASAP otherwise the scouts will often never wear that rank patch as they may receive multiple at a COH.

But all of this gets complicated by an ugly issue.  Paperwork.  Unless troops "game" the system, they can't get merit badges or rank patches in advance of having proof the scout earned the rank.  A good troop will build up a tackle box of patches, badges, rank cards, MB cards, blue cards, etc.  They will find a way to stockpile extra.  More importantly, they will anticipate what they need to make sure it's on hand.  Example:  If you are having elections Monday night, the troop should have a stockpile of new position patches on hand ready to go.  

A troop playing by the letter of the law faces delays and are taught procedures by store staff that effectively delays recognizing the scout.  Volunteers don't want to drive to the store every week.  So, building up a stockpile of to-be-awarded MBs is what normally happens ... and then they get delayed until the COH.

My preference is to build up that tackle box of advancements for on-the-spot use.   Then, use appropriately.  

The only thing that frustrates me in this discussion is the contradiction between the BSA GTA instructions to recognize ASAP and the BSA scout shops not selling advancements without paperwork indicating the scout earned it.  It's a contradiction that causes the months and months of delay for wearing rank patches and recognizing scouts quickly.

I'm not big on Brownsea / T21 programs.  IMHO, those skills should be taught one-on-one and are great opportunities for both senior scouts and adult leaders to have direct interactions with the scouts.  Work those requirements into the natural result of camping and being active. 

The key is get the scouts doing activities that are fun and new.  Inspire these kids to want to be scouts.  Sometimes the Brownsea / T21 programs are just about checking off requirements and forget about having fun.

If done well, it's "ok".   Very rarely great.  Done poorly, you've potentially lost a scout.

19 hours ago, Terasec said:

even having siblings at camp changes the dynamics of the group of boys

the mommy and me approach of bsa is a failure

I agree with Eagle94-A1 in his comments.  I'm not at all against girls in scouts.  But the issue Terasec points out is not to do with girls.  It is with reducing the program.  

We need to keep our scouts safe.  We need to help them have a good experience.  BUT, we don't save them from every issue and absolutely not from every challenge.  I don't like calling it the "mommy and me" approach, but there is something to this.  Scouting's value is teaching the scouts independence, responsibility and that they can handle way more than they think they can.  If the parent or another adult keeps saving the scout, the value of the program is lost. 

Here are a few axioms I do believe in.  

• It's the scout's responsibility (and their families) to be involved.  We can't save the scout from themselves or their parents.
• Scouts need to be self-supporting (to some degree).  We can help, but we can't be there at each and every moment.  We're volunteers.  

Communication - My opinion may differ from others.

• Scout - Face-to-face 
• Adults - Email, web site, calendar, Facebook

If scouts can't track the details from the meeting, help him.  If he still gets stuck, let him know that his parents should also have the details from the above sources.  

I've seen something similar recently in another unit.  A minor incident was blown way out of proportion by the spiteful vengeance of a mother.  None of the kids involved were 100% innocent, but it was about as minor of an incident as I've ever seen.  And one kid is paying the price.  In my view, the mother sees the other kid as defective and wanted him out of scouts and out of her son's scouting experience.  She's made scouts a royal hell for that poor kid.  My sympathies go out to him as he's about as normal of a kid as you can get.  I've seen multiple other scouts get away with much worse without incident reports.  

This is a hard life lesson.  If you can get your son back in scouts and he wants to be in, great.  (... if you do get in, change troops...) ... If not, there are other activities.  In the long run,scouting is just not that important.  Your son is the number one priority.  Find something he can own and grow in and benefit from.  

1 hour ago, WonderBoy said:

Electronics are just tools. Maybe the Cyber Chip needs to become more like the Tote 'en Chip. Learn about the tools and how to use them properly and then you can use them on your own. Get caught misusing the tools, and loose your privileges. (Or, if you're old school, lose a corner of your card.) And as to adults and their electronics use possibly being considered hypocrisy? Maybe. But adults are not kids. Their needs are different. If I have my phone, then parents have a point of contact and the kids don't need to carry theirs 24/7. Some adults may have jobs such that the availability of electronic communications is the very reason they are free to attend the function in the first place.

For me, the most important thing is that we model good electronic citizenship so that our Scouts have a good example to follow. 

My experience is that adults want their phones because they want their phones.  It's more similar to youth and their reasoning then you would ever believe.  Youth want to be able to text family and friends just like adults want to be able to text family and friends.  

I always find it interesting that we allow adults to use them because we want the adults help, but we are comfortable telling the scouts no ... as if the scouts won't avoid coming and won't hide from us because they want to use them.  

14 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

Our Troop allows phones prior to the meeting.  Once the meeting is called to order, they must be put away.

Scouts may bring them on outings, to be used in the car on the way to and from.  Once we arrive at the event, they are to be put away.  We do have the occasional request for a phone to be used for pictures, which is granted when appropriate.  The Scouts may use them in their tent at night, until lights out, and with headphones only.

I'm good with that as long as the adults follow the same rules.    

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

We've boiled our guidance down to: When at a meeting, be at the meeting.

That's my philosophy too.  It's not about the phone or device.  It's about participating, being involved and interacting.  IMHO, it happens whether it's the phone or some other reason.  Heck, we have a scout who might as well have a phone.  But if it's not the phone, it's magic cards, foot balls, books or other games.  

I was just wondering if there was any guidance.  So far the only guidance I see is safe scouting rules and it's a tool to learn how to be use.

I have understanding for the shared views.  I'm looking for any clarification BSA sends or provides.  

On 5/16/2018 at 3:35 PM, numbersnerd said:

... Well, maybe TOO minimal adult coverage. Only 2 for 18. And I say possibly too minimal in case of an emergency where two-deep would be impossible. ...

Usually, if emergencies happen, scout camp staff will step up and lend a staff member to supplement a missing adult leader.  

I've continued reading as I find it hard to give up a search.  I did just find this, but it's still vague.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/100-055_WB.pdf ... The Scout Law and Cybersafety/Cyberbullying

Quote

Remember that life is a balance. In Scouting, we focus on a balanced life through our aims: character, physical fitness, and citizenship. Technology is a tool to help us. It is not there to take the place of family, friends, the Scout Law, and staying physically fit. 

So essentially, BSA is says technology is a tool.  No definition or guidance.  As T2Eagle says, it's left to the troop.

The BSA Cyber Chip requirements for grades 6-12 have this requirement

• Talk to your unit leader about the acceptable standards and practices for using allowed electronic devices, such as phones and games, at your meetings and other Scouting events.

Where should a unit leader go for BSA guidance on this?  Is it just common sense adjusted for individual preferences and unit policies?  Or did BSA also publish guidance on this?  

I'm not looking for a debate.  I'm looking to be pointed to where BSA published their policies or guidance.

On 5/22/2018 at 12:33 AM, Jenn said:

... the parents were handed a folder which contained worksheets for the boys to fill out prior to every rank advancement.  ...

I dread yet another checklist, workbook, pamphlet, rule set, teaching guide, etc.  Adults need to keep out of the scout's hair.  Scouts have their Boy Scout handbook and merit badge books.  I've rarely found a need for more.  These are the ones I don't mind.   

• A troop cook book ... ideas for troop favorite recipes
• A troop song book ... ideas for troop favorite songs
• A troop trip book ... ideas for troop favorite trips and activities

My key point is that we need to stop trying to solve problems for the scouts.  Often our efforts add more problems then they solve.  We adding overhead and paperwork.  No one enjoys extra paperwork.  Worse, we prevent the scouts from working through the issue themselves.  It's through working through those issues that the scout learns.  

IMHO, checklists, workbooks, pamphlets, rule sets, teaching guides, etc is just another version of helicopter parents.  But in this case, it's helicopter leaders.  

On 5/22/2018 at 9:47 AM, ValleyBoy said:

... youth lose there handbook all the time.  ...

No, they don't.  I've known hundreds of scouts.  I've only had to deal with two or three that truly lost their book.  Misplaced --> yes. Water logged --> yes.   Lost and never found --> rare.  

One reason that I dislike all the extra data recording and worksheets is that it makes extra work and it robs the scouts of the great experience of "taking care of their stuff" and "being responsible" and "experiencing what happens" when things are misplaced or not taken care of properly.  These are life lessons that will happen naturally and that's what we want.  We want the scouts to learn through the natural results of their own actions.  The scouts even lose the experience of seeing someone who is kind and helpful when they screw up.  Usually, if someone loses a book, you help them re-create the records as best you can.  Plus, it's just not that hard to re-create from scratch.

On 5/22/2018 at 11:02 AM, Saltface said:

If men carried purses, what would be in yours?

No.  Just no.  

3 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Boy, am I coming into this late.  21 pages?    ...

Threads like this always crash to the lowest base intellectual level after about two or three pages.  

It depends on the adults.  Generally, I agree that 2 to 3 adults for 30 scouts is fine.  AND, that ratio gives busy-body adults enough work such that they will more likely stay out of the scout's business.   4 is nice if you want to run errands or have a more relaxed week.  Anything more is getting to be just too much.  Essentially, adults want to show value by being involved and making a difference.  In addition, it's extremely difficult to get a consistent leadership style / involvement out of eight adults.  They will be tripping over each other.  

I often wonder if there is a scout summer camp that has a policy of adults may attend camp, but the troop camp shall only have two adult tents ... unless special needs exist.  Any additionally needed adult tents will be located in camp site XXXX ... co-incidentally a ten minute walk from the scout's camp site.  

Or another idea is the camp "recommending" having two adults.  Having more than three adults would create the expectation that the troop provides that number (above three) of adults to the volunteer crew performing service projects around the camp each day.  Essentially, you want to bring eight adults?  Great!  Camp needs help and expects you to volunteer five adults each day to a service crew.