fred johnson

I fear much written here does not reflect the comments I hear from active members.  

The one point that I will fully and enthusiastically agree with is that we have way too much focus on advancement.  Advancement is important as a motivation, but it's just one part of the program.  The outings and activities are more important.  From the outings, advancement should be a natural result of actively going on outings.

In recent years, I've seen multiple youth aging out going for Eagle that need help fulfilling their camping requirements.  This always baffles me as the best parts of scouting are in the outings.  In my opinion, why even be in scouts if you don't do the outings.  Meetings may be fun, but it's the activities and events that provide value.  If you are active, then it should be easy to get many many nights of camping.  

Your situation is not unusual.  

• COs often are distant to only start asking questions at some point years down the road.  Just something to work through.
• Many units have had COs that are not real entities.  It happens even though it's not preferred or even the BSA documented model.  Often they are "parents of" organizations or a neighborhood group.  

In your case, your PTO is a legal entity and a non-profit as they are under the school district and school districts are non-profits.  The real issue is probably that they don't want to give you their non-profit ID and are now questioning whether they can charter your scouting organization.  Also, the PTO must have a non-profit ID to spend money otherwise they must pay taxes, etc.  

You really have two real options.

• Calm the concerns of the CO.  Don't write off your CO too quick.
• Find a new CO.

Yep.  At some point, you need to hold your tongue.  If it's mainly style (strickness, by the book, etc), then it's hard to argue.  Personally, my ideal scoutmaster is still a very laid back person who watches from a distance.  Who laughs with the scouts.  Who mainly teaches by asking questions in a way that the scouts don't even know he knows the answer.  Rarely, does my ideal scoutmaster actually direct anything.  Rarely, does he take charge or raise his voice.

But then scoutmasters change and the SM often sets the tone of the program.  Similar with camping chair.  Advancement.  Treasurer.  etc etc etc.  

If it's a safety issue or violating a rule, then speak up.  But otherwise, you will be more effective making change by waiting to be asked.  And even then, be careful how much you share.  

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

Do the hiking miles for the Hiking Merit Badge require they be done via an organized BSA hike?

No.  If it was required to be an official scouting activity, it would say something such as what camping says "at designated scouting activities or events".

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

If they don't and you are a Hiking MBC, what verification do you require from the scout to grant them credit for their hikes?

Same with any other MB requirement.  Trust and verify.  Picture.  Who was with you?  Let me talk to them.  etc. etc. etc.

1 hour ago, desertrat77 said:

RTs are a great idea.  But when it comes to actually executing them...not so much.  Most people are busy and usually it's just another meeting, despite good intentions.

I agree.  IMHO, it's more about getting to know other scout leaders.  Monthly does get to be a lot of meetings.  I was thinking every three months would be nice, once a season.  IMHO, round table is about the interaction with other scouters.  If it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't attend.  Heck, I remember being fairly new at round table and looking for any opportunity to ditch the cub breakout.  It just was not good.  The real value I found was chatting with other scouters.  

I often wonder if district roundtables should be changed from monthly to every three or four months.  Then on that date have more to train or announce or to do.

2 hours ago, TMSM said:

In 2016 we had 20 scouts at Summer camp and only 3 adults - it was a great time. I felt like I did nothing but sit around. In 2017 we had 28 scouts and 12 adults - It was mostly a fuster cluck of adults trying to do everything and nothing at the same time. 

That's what I've seen too.  The experience of the scouts is diminished because of the quantity of the adults.  The adults feel the need to justify themselves being there by showing their value.  Thus, inserting themselves regularly into the program.

Plus, there is no way to get 12 adults to work in the same direction when their sons are involved.  Eventually, everyone starts second guessing what's going on and the efforts of one group subvert the efforts of another.  

2 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

I disagree. Read my post above for info about my troop. I would say atleast 1 ASM:10 scouts. Our SM and ASM always do different tasks and it makes the SM’s and I’s life easier. 

What you described in your earlier post was good.  I have no issue with it.  But you effectively had one SM and one ASM because your ASMs assumed different roles.  

(see next comment)

IMHO, ya just don't need that may ASMs.  In fact, it often damages the program.  A good rule of thumb in my book is some ratio.  Maybe 1 for every 15 to 20 scouts.  If you have 10 scouts, do you really need an ASM?  30 scouts is good for one ASM.  50 scouts is good for two ASMs.  

7 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

Not a single person in my den went to that troop because no one liked it. 

It's the trouble with troop shopping.  One visit and/or one camp-out is just a throw of the dice.  Ya really need to be with a unit for multiple events / activities over a period of time to form a fair judgement.  My favorite is when a parent says "we joined because we really liked the SPL".  Well, ya know SPLs are temporary and it's just a roll of the dice if the troop has a good SPL at any one moment.  

7 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

I probably wouldn’t in scouting still if I went to that Troop.

You don't know that.  Maybe it's true, but you could have helped that troop be better.  

I always find it funny because there is almost zero pack shopping, but 100% troop shopping.  IMHO, there is much more difference in the quality of packs then troops.  Yet we don't promote pack shopping.  

6 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

You wanna make sure you hold out for signing bonus and good incentives.  Make sure the incentives are paid out early in the contract.  One can never tell what the future may hold.  Also make sure the incentives are guaranteed in case he gets traded to another troop or venture post.  

You may be joking, but I've seen things like that happen.  Den leaders who starting looking for what the troop can do for them, etc and which troop will effectively please them the most.  

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Most of the time scouts are more influenced by their den leader than anything else.  

That's my experience too.  Then the other parents are starting at somewhere new and different.  Longer drive for some.  Less of a match than the previous location.  New people.  It may be good for the person driving the choice, but often it's an excuse to leave for others.  

There will always be good reasons to switch.  Always.  But as soon as I hear statements about the other troop being "adult led" I just shake my head.  That's less about good/bad troops and more about labeling another troop to be the bad guy.   IMHO, it's just not scout-like.  

Everyone probably remembers this, but I'm really negative on the whole troop shopping experience.  It's just hugely overblown, done poorly and rarely do families really choose the right match if there is such a thing as "the right match".  Worse, it perverts the whole transition.  Generally, I think there is more success in joining the troop that is part of the same COR.

If you want a different unit, I'd prefer to view it as switching and it should be done at anytime during the scouting years.  Why wait for that one specific time.  A COR provides a continuum of scouting experiences from Lion to Venturing.  If somewhere along the way a mismatch happens, then switch.  And, there are reasons that can justify switching.  

• Sometimes the troop is bad.
• Sometimes families need a fresh start.
• Sometimes there is another significant factor.  

But otherwise, support your COR's scouting program and help make it better.  

My experience with "shopping" is it's more important to stay with your friends and it's really hard to make a good match for everyone.  Also, it's hard to predict if the match will work.  In the end, one person sways the group to their best interest or the whole group breaks up.  

Many scouters have legitimate concerns about the gender policy change based on their values and why they are in scouting.  Many scouters were also surprised how quick it happened.  Or at least how little notice they were given. 

Civility - I do hope we can keep our frustration though to our selves or to our closest friends.  Civility is important.  Kindness and politeness is important.  Most importantly, it's important to not damage a program we value because we ourselves feel damaged or less valued.  

Our April round table had council leaders attend to take questions.  It was pre-announced and communicated to be an open question format.  One or two scouters came prepared with grievance notepads and really made round table uncomfortable for everyone.  The council leader did an absolute great job staying calm and civil in the face of several less than civil registered adult scouters.  Her composure was outstanding and her communication skills were impressive, but I was sad at an exchanged that happened in a larger open format.  

If I was a first-time attendee, I wonder if I would have ever come back?  Would I stay in a program with such conflict?  My question though is what did it serve?  He vented.  He pointed out every where he had trouble with how the transition happened.  But at the same time, I really don't think you could have done a smooth discussion with as large and diverse membership of BSA.  Sometimes decisions just need to be quick and clean.  

Similar for the transition.  In some ways, I think we just need to complete the transition.  We can move toward fewer uncomfortable situations the sooner the transition is done. 

Judging - I've always had a hard time judging from the outside.  As often as I've been right, I've been wrong.  I think this is especially true for scouts.  What parents think is a good troop is often not what is good for the scout. 

Boy Led - It's subjective.  What one person calls boy led is something another person would view as adult driven.  What is perceived as boy led can often be a shell around an adult program.  The key point is life lessons can be learned in many environments and often just by being an active troop that is camping and doing things.  Don't invest too heavily in deciding what is and is not boy led.  Focus more on is the troop doing things and building fellowship.  

Weekly meetings - I would not use having weekly meetings or lack of weekly meetings as good or bad.  Focus more on the larger dynamic.  At some point, meetings are needed to coordinate.  But why meet if you have no purpose or nothing to do?  Perhaps it is something the troop can grow more into as the troop grows in maturity, etc.  

Camping and summer camp - This is a huge factor my sons and our scouts.  This is why they are in scouts.  It's also often the purpose they learn skills, organize and call themselves scouts.  It's why we have patrols.  It's why we have many of the required merit badges.  First Aid.  Camping.  Communication.  Env Sci.  Emergency Prep.  Swimming/hiking/cycling.  Cooking.  

Personally

• I'd avoid a troop that does not camp.  That strikes out troop A.  
• I'd avoid a troop that is far away.  That strikes out troop D.  Scouts often need to run home for things and families are often tight for time racing between activities.  There is a HUGE value to somewhere that is near by or within a reasonable drive.  Heck, wouldn't you like your son to be able to bike to the troop meeting location?  
• Beyond that, maybe you can bring something to the troop such as helping them to have meaningful meetings every week or two.  Maybe you can help inspire more camping.  Troops are often only as good as the parents.  If you want a better troop, invest in the troop.  
• I'd look to see where your son fits in.  Friendships.  Laughing.  Inspired.  This is really the biggest factor.  Scouts will only stay in the troop if they enjoy it.

15 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

That is hard when the adults are planning things, and not the Scouts.  6 months are already planned by the adults, and the adults do not want to drive any distance on Fridays since "The Scouts can't set up in the dark."

This circles back to focus less on the ideal and more on getting the scouts out and doing things.  You can always teach life lessons.  You can always build rapport to influence and improve the program.  You just can't fairly expect everyone to get to the same vision of the BSA ideal instantly.  It takes time to build a common vision.

After all these years, I worry less and less about boy-led, how many PLCs, who signs off on rank, etc, etc.  

I only feel strongly about a few things.

• Shield the scouts from the adults.  The program exists for the kids.  Let it be their program.  IMHO, this is the primary role of the SM and CC.  
• Worry less about "am I do scouting right"
• Invest way, way more in "what's the next adventure"

Beyond that

• At the slightest whiff of the scouts taking responsibility and leadership, back off and let them have more.  it's the reverse of the pattern our youth learn.  Naturally youth grow up learning to be quiet as adults speak and to back down.  It's giving way to authority.  As adult scout leaders, we need to naturally and quickly shut up and back away as scouts stand up and start taking leadership.
• Laugh and joke and socialize.  But, let it be the scout's program.
• Quietly coach with questions.  
• Example: For the annual planning conference that did not go well?  Did the SM and CC shield the scouts from the adults?  Did the SM coach the SPL in advance with structure, materials and help him get onto a road to be successful? 
• Once you start doing interesting things and having the scouts excited to be in scouting, you can introduce a little bit more and tweaking it toward the BSA "ideal".  But ya know, scouts learn simply by getting out camping, socializing and having new experiences.  You can try to plan how they will grow, but I think it's better to use adventures and activities as a structure in which they will naturally grow.  

We promise scouts adventures and friendships and fun.  Too often they only see meetings and bureaucracy and conflict.  

For this situation, ask the scouts.  What's going on?  Is the SPL coming back?  Do you want someone else ?  It's their program.  Asks them.  Then, get back to doing things. 

Thank you !!!!!!   You would think I would have known that by now.

Where can you get extra-TALL scout shirts.  We have had several scouts that are over 6'4".  They always had trouble getting a shirt to stay tucked in.  We now have that again with a scout.  

Any advice on uniforming for a really tall scout ?

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

40s  ... How would you use bigoted then? What word would you use instead?

I've always felt and have been taught that stereotyped assumptions (like assuming your supporting parent must be your mother) are bigoted. YMMV.

"stereotyped assumptions" are more correctly called bias or influence.  To be bigoted, you need to do the next step that is in most definitions.  Bigotry needs obstinance, hatred, intolerance toward another group or blind devotion to your own group.  

I often chuckle when I hear speakers use hateful intolerant speech often against another group that ends with phrases such as middle aged white men.  I chuckle because what they are protesting is often not bigotry but their explicit speech is exactly bigotry.  

@CalicoPenn ... Your argument is repetitive.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Interesting comments. One of my traits of reasoning is I tend to look at the bigger pictures. What I see is that scouting did it to itself from a lot of bad decisions. 

I often wonder how today's parents would view the BSA if National had not made any major program changes since 1957?

I think some were bad decisions and some were needed decisions.  I think we can argue Lion and Tiger additions were bad as they hurt the troop later and create a bad long term reputation with-in the kids of that age.  But I think we have not hit on a key issue.  Yes, we've talked about family burn out, cubs being repetitive and now being 5+ years.  But we have not discussed one big area that I often think about.

CHOICE - Did the kid choose to be in scouts?  Is the kid choosing to stay in scouts?  Or, is it the parents choice?  It's the biggest difference I'm seeing now.  Scouts in scouting because their families want them in it instead of because they want to be in it.  Builds resentment.  Builds membership that subverts the program.  

When I think about the model from long ago, a scout leader would visit a class room with pinewood derby cars or other similar and inspire the scouts to join.  The scouts then asked their parents to join.  They wanted to build that car or go camping or ....

Now, I see many scouts that are in scouting because their parents want them in it and they don't.  They never made the choice. It then becomes almost like a rotten apple spreading a bad attitude.  They are there saying they don't want to be in it.  So their friends, then start saying they don't want to be in it.  I think often Lion and Tigers is bad because the kid is too young to understand the choices or to participate with any level of responsibility.  I think it makes scouting look like a mature toddler program.  

When I look at my own kids, they often don't want to go to the meetings.  They are boring.  Repetitive.  Often poorly organized.  Without purpose.  But if you give them an interesting camp out or an interesting activity or a chance to share time with their real friends, absolutely.  They are excited to go. They ask to go.  They clear their schedules.  They pack and are ready to go.

IMHO ... this is the biggest change that needs to happen.  A return to a program that kids want to be in.  A return to the youth asking to join.  ... IMHO, until we inspire and excite the scouts, we will keep hemorrhaging.  

13 hours ago, Pselb said:

Ford on the other hand just kept doing what it always did and surprisingly they survived and stayed in the running.  They did not change the way they did business "to meet the demands  of the market".   Neither did they feel the need to "fix" anything.  They just stayed doing what they did best, they made cars and trucks.

I understand your point, but the background is weak.  It could be argued Ford made more changes earlier, but that would probably be a flawed argument too. 

• There is a reason FORD stood for Found On Road Dead.  There was a major quality problem for decades.   Just like GM.
  • Ford adopted many of the quality improvement programs driven by Deming in Japan.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
  • Ford continued change with Kaizen and other principles.  https://www.am-online.com/news/2006/3/8/automotive-academy-and-ford-team-up-to-use-kaizen-best-practice/11268/
  • I have hazy memories where you would buy a Ford (and other American brands) and it was normal and expected that you would return to the dealer a week or two later for them to fix the defects and problems you found.  Now, that would be viewed as a joke and customers would walk away.  
  • Like all car manufacturers, Ford made major changes driven by Japanese competition.
• Ford killed and added and changed models just like other manufacturers.
  • May favorites
    • Ford Escort - Created and sold heavily as a direct response to Japanese cars and the demand for fuel economy.   Then followed the Pinto and Capri for the same reasons.   
    • Ford's large boats have been mainly killed off.  Crown Victoria.  LTD.  
  • Other famous dropped models ... Escort, Pinto, Capri, Bronco, Falcon, Fairlane, Fairmont, Galaxie, LTD, Torino, Granada, Country (squire, sedan, wagan, etc), Thunderbird,  ... Ranger ... Explorer ... Windstar ... Aerostar
• Ford and GM are very differently organized companies.  
  • Ford was mainly one company that had models.  If they purchased another brand, they tried to merge it in more than GM.  And if not, it was killed or spun off again.  
  • GM had a hodge-podge of poorly differentiated, out-dated brands.  Where Ford killed cars like the Falcon because the market shifted, GM kept supporting whole sub-brands whose time had passed.  When times became tight, it's those sub-brands that failed.  Oldsmobile.  Pontiac.  Geo.  Saturn.  In fact, GM has been merging and killing brands for a long time.  Ford and GM are very different case models.  
  • Ford only really had one sub-brand ... Mercury.  Like GM's sub-brands, Mercury did not survive the tight years.  

I understand your point that BSA may be damaging their brand and the heart of what is good in scouting.  But just like Ford and GM, BSA needs to change and update otherwise the only thing left will be a bunch of scoutmasters pulling trailers with their Ford Broncos with scouts who's parents drive Ford LTD wood paneled station wagons.   And, there are not many of those left.  

15 hours ago, blw2 said:

... some of these seem more likely to be the adults wanting it for the kids, rather than the kids really wanting it....

So so true.  

56 minutes ago, qwazse said:

When I hear Northern Star, I always think Alaska.  So, there is no level of branding that I think will clean up that mess. Headwater, Whooping Crane, Thousand Lakes, Bread-Basket-When-Thawed, would have captured the location. Clearly, their board wants the Minnesotan-on-the-street to think of something else.

Minnesota motto is "L'Etoile du Nord", the star of the north.  Chosen in 1861 as a homage to the french traders and missionaries that helped settle the state.