fred johnson

I am sad for you.

IMHO, people aspire to the labels assigned to them whether those labels are good or bad. I really hope I never talk about Eagle Scout being too common or awarded to bad kids. That's wrong thinking. Essentially, I've seen many people that remember they are Eagle scouts and they have tried to act better. Having that rank influences behavior to be better. It's a mark that they are stuck with and many any spend their entire lives trying to live up to the ideals of Eagle Scout. I'm with Sentinel947 on this. Encourage and develop a value to the ideals of Eagle Scout. But don't try to guess who should or shouldn't earn it. It's a checklist. If they complete the checklist, they get the rank. Then help them value the accomplishment.

As people on this forum know, IMHO, I think the concept of "troop shopping" is a broken BSA concept. Hurts troops and damages relationships and just gives cubs an excuse to quit. Heck why promote a big decision after five years of scouting? If ya don't like the unit the charter org had you in for Cub Scouts, you are welcome to switch at any time. Instead, you offer a big decision after five years of scouting. Heck, the best decision I know after five years of Cub Scouting is to try something new. Karate. Sports. Other. I feel hard on this one because our local DEs get good reviews if they start a new troop. The result, we have more troops than our packs can support. And from what I see, all the troops are "fairly" good. What I really get frustrated at is that "troop shopping" doesn't show you what the troops are really like. What's good. What's not. Instead what you see are the troops that look good on that day and that market themselves very hard. I fully believe in recruitment and helping packs. Fine. But we have a perverted over-emphasis on recruitment and troops marketing to all packs in our city. In fact, one of the troops that markets the best and looks the best is a troop that I would not want my sons in and that never actually helps any of the packs. Mainly because they recruit from ALL the packs in the city. Frustrating. Den Chiefs .. yet another mostly broken concept. It's a great role for boy scouts to have because it's almost an automatic advancement role. I have yet to see a den chief that makes the program less work. And they are essentially undependable. My experience is that at best you learn a week in advance if they will be there. Often you never know in advance and they may or may not show up. I fully understand. If the pack and troop met on the same night in the same place, it might work. But different locations, different nights, etc. It's another idealistt

Little league? It discriminates because it splits genders into "separate but equal" groups. The gender groups are NOT equal in focus, resources or performance. When was the last time the "girls" little league championship made national news. Seems like Little League would need to hold gender-less try outs to see who can play in which group. I know many 2nd grade girls that could out-hit 2nd grade boys. ... IMHO, it is arrogant to assert who discriminates and who doesn't. Heck, most high school sports teams discriminate strongly because they favor the kids who've been in the sport for years and years. Newbies are generally unwelcome. ... All the more reason BSA should adopt a local option. BSA can be in-reality non-discriminatory and leave unit specific membership choices to their charter organizations. It is really a meaningful two edge sword and BSA is almost there now. And BSA may be able to weather this one better than others. Most units are "owned" by other groups, i.e. churches. To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant. Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

It's also a hole to fill. Years ago, the hole to fill was communication, personal mgmt, budgets, health, fitness, leadership, etc. Schools have really geared up to handle those since the the 1920s. In fact, it's embarrassing that many of the eagle required badges are much better handled by the school system. BSA has it's twist, but those topics are now covered most years in school. So where can BSA fill in a gap and where do boys want to experiment? Welding. Wood working. Many of the hands on merit badges. IMHO, I would like to see a merger the badges covered in school (i.e. merge the citizenship badges, merge the personal mgmt & family life) and gear up more on the physical badges that require lashing, hiking, physical skills and movement.

Merlyn ... You are just not intellectually honest. You are often disrespectful of others beliefs and you work toward purging BSA of it's long time religious aspect. You suggest the UK group start it's own group to practice their own religious principles, but you have spent ten years in this group pounding your dead horse. I pity those who think all we are is worm fodder.

moosetracker wrote: "But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect." Very true. Look at the YMCA that in the name itself has Christian and started as a Christian fellowship for men. Continued that way. When I grew up, our YMCA had a Cross and religious pictures. Now, they are all gone.

You continue to be a spiteful hate monger.

FOR THE SCOUT .... "The boy is now a life and working on his Eagle project but in no way whatsover is representative of an eagle scout." ... That is wrong thinking. Period. Leaders support the scouts. It would be WRONG for the scout leaders at this point to work to STOP the scout from earning eagle. That is not what we do. BUT ... the leaders can and absolutely should work to solve behavior issues. IMHO, his behavior is a memership issue. Same with the dad. But the troop has lived with the behavior for years and the scout is now a life scout. At this point, the scout pretty much can finish his Eagle requirements to earn his advancement. Leaders can work to get behavior improved but should not stand in the way of advancement. And to be honest, the scout has earned five ranks with his current behavior and now you expect him to change? Behavior problems need to be dealt with when they happen but especially while scouts are in their early ranks. And IMHO, it is a membership issue. If you want to behave within the boundaries of the program, you are welcome. We all want scouting to be there for the kids that really need it, but those kids drive away dozens of other scouts and makes a bad name for the program. ================================================= FOR THE ADULT .... Committee chair. You are hosed. You need to take this up with the charter organization. If they don't remove him, I'd switch immediately. Earlier advice is very applicable. For kids, the scouting years are short. Switch your scout to a fun behaved troop and move on. Suggest to other kids that they switch too. Report the issues to the charter org, the district exec and the scout executive. And get your kid to a safe fun unit.

That is absolutely a fine choice for YOUR troop and in my opinion, your troop should be able to make those leadership choices. When I think about the family membership of my troop, you would lose half the members if any of the direct contact leaders were publicly gay. And to be honest, I'd switch my own children out of the group too. Not because of a youth protection risk but because of lifestyle marketing that automatically happens because every adult leader sets an example by how they lead their lives and by what the youth see. With that said, I hope BSA changes their policy so that your troop can publicly do what you are doing instead of having to skirt the values expressed in the Scout Law to choose the your troop leaders.

I have an "interesting" den this year. I have multiple older brothers in the den who are in boy scouts and those boys could often attend. I was thinking about "asking" that if they want to attend they are welcome, but that they should wear their boy scout shirts and that they would be serving at the direction of the den chief. For example, we are doing the athlete pin. I'd like to see the adults planning and the den chiefs and boy scouts putting the cubs thru the push ups, pull ups, etc. Perhaps even doing them with the Webelos. What do you think of this idea?

I mostly agree with you. There is a slight difference though from the perspective of not actively reaching out to open a can of worms. I've seen five charter orgs. I've moved units between charter orgs too. Only one requested to get monthly copies of the bank statements and did an annual audit. With that single charter org, I'd absolutely ask how they want to handle the money and equipment and closure of the unit. In the other four charter orgs cases, the charter org was never involved in any way other than providing space and signing the recharter form. They never asked to see anything. Likewise, they never helped raise funds or purchase equipment or adminster the program. They stil absolutely have the right to be involved in the answer. But I would not change course as part of closing the unit. If they were not involved in decisions up until dissolving the unit, I would not "reach out" to bring them in now. If they asked, absolutely yes. But I would just not reach out to open a can of worms and create more work for myself. ******************************** But this discussion is moot without knowing any details of a specific situation.

Focus on what is fair. Who owns it, the charter org. BSA has zero ownership. Who has a right to it, the scouts in that unit. ***************************************** Usually I tow the BSA line 100%. But in this case, I think about what is fair. Plus ... BSA Article XI has two sections that seem to contradict each other. The second starts with "in the case of a chartered organization"? Isn't that all units? They all have chartered organizations. Fair ... IMHO, if BSA is not responsible for the debts and did not raise the money, it has no claim on the money. And, it is rather arrogant to think so especially after how much money local units route to the councils. If a council rep came to me asking for the money or a statement of accounts, I’d tell them to go fish. Chartered orgs are a little different. But not much. In most cases, the chartered org has no active interest in the unit. The chartered orgs usually have zero involvement in fundraising, using or maintaining the equipment. But if everyone in the unit “quit†scouting, I think the chartered org clearly has rights to everything … if they want it. ********************************* So what is fair? If a unit effectively dissolves and scouts transfer to a new organization, the money and equipment should transfer too. If they go to two different troops, apportion the money and equipment to the units. ********************************* In my case, I'd ask the charter org exec to sign a letter "releasing" the unit. I would not even mention money or equipment. Then, I'd get it chartered under the other charter org and after six months to a year dissolve one of the two units at that location. Heck, I might even do it faster and ignore all the details. Often, when scouts transfer units, scouts take their scout accounts with them. I could see treating this whole situation like a scout account transfer. Just let the new unit know that some of the stuff is for the scout and some is for the general fund of the new unit.

It's really about style versus motivation. A scout can be motivated by self-less altruistic reasons or motivated by self-achievement. Same with a boss. He might be motivated by helping others or by promotion and money. Good leadership can be driven by many different motives. It's not a one versus the other. And in fact, even self-less leader and ladder climbing isn't mutually exclusive.

Obedient? I hate seeing leaders fall back on that one. I'd like to remember that a scout is not submissive. Scouts is not the military and not a dictatorship. Too many leaders confuse obedient and submissive. Too many leaders confuse leadership and dictatorship. Sounds like by BSA by-laws, the issue is really the troop should not have accepted non-Catholics as members. If you want to be a faith based youth program (which BSA scouting can be), then you need to only accept scouts and leaders of that faith. More specifically, you can't make a deal with the devil where you have an agreement at the start that members of other faiths agree to attend your faith services. Eseentially, if you accept other faiths into your unit, you can't make them agree to attend your services. I reality, I'm 100% fine with charter orgs that would run their units as a church youth group. 100% fine with it. That's what later day saints (mormons) do. But, I've never seen a unit chartered by a Catholic church do that. All Catholic units I've known are open to anyone and very accepting of multiple faiths. The funny thing is that while I've seen the church and the units very accepting of members of other faiths, I've seen multiple members be down right rude and disrespectful to the church that charters their own scouting unit.

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option. I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic. My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

By merit badge class, I meant a special opportunity such as a Saturday morning in a local field to discuss the requirements and do the initial measurements. I did not mean during troop meetings. Essentially a special unique opportunity. Scouting is best when it offers unique opportunities.

My son enlisted in the Marines last year. Thru that, I've gotten to know a local military recruiter. That recruiter is probably the most physically fit person I know and the leading expert I know on nutrition and health. QUESTION #1 - He has volunteered to come in and lead the Webelos Athelete pin. What do you think? Is that a good idea? QUESTION #2 - He probably would volunteer to lead a Boy Scout Physical Fitness merit badge class? Is that a good idea? I have a lot of respect for the man. But I'm not sure how other parents would view it.

How long do you keep a den chief? How do you switch if a kid from another troop who needs advancement wants to be den chief and your current den chief doesn't need it and made less than 50% of the den meetings last year?

Why don't Venturers do the same thing at Boy Scout Troops? Easy. Boy Scouts and Venturing ages overlap. Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts ages don't. All groups have membership declines, but Venturing pulls members from Boy Scouts during a key age. Boy Scouts has already had an older-boy problem. Now ya want to pull them into a separate program? Ya know ... it's a bad design. BSA shoots itself in the foot. A program redesign needs to be done. I'm not sure what, but things are broken now and need to be fixed.

Make the patrols be long lasting patrols and let the scouts pick. Initially, put all the new scouts in a patrol. If they want to switch to be with a friend, fine. But let them pick. People voluntarily get together with friends and people they enjoy. People will not long-term (years) socialize in forced groups.

Commitment? Support? I'm not sure what that means? Advertising? It is pushed plenty. Far more than the percent of scouts in it. But BSA is not cash rich for advertising. They can't do commercials everywhere on every program under the BSA label. It's not that BSA is trying to kill Venturing. BSA is trying to fix multiple programs that are broken in multiple ways. *********************************** Venturing brand is just not there *********************************** Everyone knows about Eagle scout. Eagle scout is almost legondary. It has a myth about it. Venturing awards are meaningless to most everyone else. *********************************** CANDIDATE POPULATION is very limited. *********************************** - Boys - A 14 year old boy has probably tried scouts if they ever would. Cub scouts. Boy scouts. If they have not or quit a previous scouting program, they are not going to try another scouting program. But if they are still in, you want them to switch to yet another program because it's different? Another transition? Right when they discover girls and work and entering high school? And Venturing is not a dating program ... right? - Girls - Same thing. Been thru Girl Scouts. Or still in. If they did not want to be in Girl scouts or had a bad experience, they won't try another scouting program. Then add high school and puberty and jobs and .... ..... ... There are relatively few at that age that will try yet another scouting program. *********************************** Challenging times *********************************** BSA has political fights going on. Plus competition. Marketing. Etc. IMHO, BSA just needs to get back to the basics and do a bunch of redesign. One of the biggest is getting back to focusing on program materials and camping and letting charter orgs run their program. Maybe co-ed or not. Maybe multiple orientations. Maybe 100 kids or 10 kids. Maybe ONE unit for kids 5 years old thru 20 years old. Get back to the basics.

This is what I do too. I just don't care if the bottom of my tent gets dirty or even slightly torn. The bottom of the tent is NOT to keep you dry. It exists slightly to keep bugs out and mostly to help keep the shape of the tent. Plus the bottom of most tents is a mesh and most ground clothes are solid plastic. So if water is between the floor and the groundcloth, I want the water to squirt out of the tent, not into the tent.

Over hype and under delivery is a continual marketing failure in all BSA programs at all levels. Push excitement and thrills is in contrast with the best experiences that are the fellowship and simple activities. BSA can't deliver Disney World. But it can deliver good times throwing a football, hiking, canoeing or sitting up late at night with your friends. All the good will has been built up on the simple stuff. If scouting markets excitement and thrills, that is how it will be graded and it will fail.

Voting member means a fairly consistent attendee or essentially not a 1st time drop in parent .. interesting. I could see need for that. I must admit our units don't vote and it's not a democracy. We try to always run by consensus, but our committee is more a hierarchy and not a voting body.