fred8033

Night hikes are often the best.

I totally get that. When my sons were in CUBS, it was before "adventures". We were often trying to piece together activities to close out individual requirements. Perhaps the new Cub "Adventures" is the response to that requirement focus. I'm not sure if it's better or just different.

Though I'm late to the game, I just read the BSA 2019 Nov/Dec advancement news. Great article for ALL unit leaders in it. I'm putting this under "Program" as it's a comment about focusing on "program", not advancement. Read "Advancement Is Based on Experiential Learning" on page 6 in BSA 2019 Nov/Dec Advancement News. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/2019_Nov-Dec.pdf A few comments Advancement is natural outcome. Program over advancement. Scouts attend because of program. Growth is tracked thru advancement. Keep inside the PLC the planning / mapping of advancement to troop program. The troop scouts should be motivated by the excitement of the program. Don't expect them excited because it fulfills a requirement. Example: Troop program should not have a calendar entry for a five mile hike for second class scouts. Instead, it should have a hike to local attraction (waterfall, dam, overlook, etc) where the trail ends at a local ice cream parlor. Just so happens the round trip length, starting point, etc are five miles. Give the tenderfoot scouts the maps and compasses. Let the older scouts hang back and chat and enjoy the event. The PL should be coached that they can ask to see the scout's handbook and sign off on requirements the scout has demonstrated even if the scout didn't know he was fulfilling a requirement. Even though PL is ideal, I'm okay with SM/ASM doing same if that's the personality of the troop. My favorite memory is a local SM years ago who every year took his scouts on a long canoe trip. During the trip, new scouts would be coached on canoe strokes and parts of the canoe. Each would canoe with the SM at some point. ... The SM and scout would be in the canoe for hours together. Relaxed conversation. And periodic discussions about canoeing ... At the end of the trip, the SM would award the canoing MB to any scout that had not already received it. Scouts kept going on the trip year after year. ... IMHO, that's the type of SM I'd like to be. My key thought ... Avoid saying XXXXX fulfills an advancement requirement. That's not motivating.

Yeah, to be honest, you've probably hit at one of the areas that we are less good. Our troop follows BSA G2SS strictly for hikes, camping, service, etc. But if it's a social event such as movie theater, food shopping, going to the mall, going to the high school football game, then no we don't make sure adults are present. We're just glad the scouts want to hang around together and grow their friendships. We count both camping, service, etc, AND social events as patrol activities. It's just the type of risk and type of activity. Plus, I can easily find adults to go on hikes with the scouts, but few that want to hang around the mall with them or go to the movies.

G2SS has the core rules. Swimming, shooting and other activities are easy to find. We do the best we can. We're in a time of change. Watch for updates, but keep running your program doing the best you can to follow the rules as you learn them. At some point, you focus on your program and any rule changes are minor issues.

Cool. Keep that. It's a family heirloom.

I must admit I prefer long standing scoutmasters. Troops change personality with the SM and youth need continuity. BUT why shouldn't it be okay. We want scouts to step up and adults to minimize their own involvement. It seems like rotating adults promotes youth owning their own program. My only fear is it takes a long time to really figure out the job. I'm betting at least two years. It would not be fun to have a SM continually learning his role.

... Jealous ... It's one trek that I always wanted to do.

It's one of the reasons that I think opening BSA is a good thing.

I did not answer the original question. No. Our troop generally followed BSA's standard troop meeting. We did have a service patrol and a program patrol. Patrols cooked and camped together. Patrols often socialized together. Patrols were long standing. Beyond that though, patrols were a way to make the troop manageable. I would have liked seeing patrols being tighter and more significant. I would have liked seeing Patrol Leaders having a more significant role.

"you call the helpline?" ... That's 911 and the cops. Sort of an contradiction. ACB ? Australian Cricket Board ? Yep. I'd call for help.

"Weekly meeting" don't have to be a recurring, 6:30pm sit in a chair thing. IMHO, that's part of what is killing scouting. ... Camping? That's a meeting. Activity setup by the program patrol? That's a meeting. Service project? That's a meeting. ... Regular cadence of scheduled meetings is important, but scouting isn't about meetings. My son's troop monthly cadence was: 1st & 3rd Monday troop meetings ... 4th Monday PLC (with separate committee meeting) ... one camp (11 of 12 months a year) ... one activity ... one service project. That was five meetings a month. Six if you count PLCs. ... Outside that, scouts often met and socialized. Any given month, 4 or 5 happened. Some months we had six. A few months had three activities. But our cadence was 2 meetings, a campout, an activity, a service project. ... In addition, our annual cadence was one high activity, one moderate activity and then something special. I was exhausted with that cadence for 15 years. Then add cub scouts. ... Having two more Monday scheduled meetings each Monday would have been just too much. The best troops are ACTIVE, but "meetings" don't make you an active troop. Troops should have things going on all the time. IMHO ... if you are going to have a meeting, be productive and do something meaningful. Scouts can see through filler and make-work meeting topics.

deeper pockets.

When do they add almost every school district to the legal claim? BSA recruited in schools. 10,000+ charters were schools.

I meant in no way a slight. I was responding to the words you wrote. "... AT&T broke itself up ...". It was a historic, groundbreaking antitrust. Larger than standard oil. It's why I added "... based on settlement of a massive anti-trust lawsuit. " ... I can't imagine how this case was managed. At least BSA's legal case has databases, modern word processors, etc. AT&T had mimeograph machines and file cabinets. I wish we were on the same camp outs. It would be fascinating to hear the stories and history. Absolutely fascinating. I grew up listening and watching these discussions. Many engineers and lawyers in my family. Decades watching the news, 60 minutes, Ted Koppel, etc. ... "he pointed out that there was no drive to break-up the System, from Justice or the public. The drive was to allow competition on supplying "stuff' to the telephone business - largely meaning the System - breaking the culture that almost everything purchased by the operating companies and Long Lines came from Western Electric, "the supply arm of the Bell System." . That is the understanding I had. I'm not sure the public really understood except that AT&T was massive. I'm too young to remember "AT&T values of service uber alles". I only remember the other side of no one can fight Ma Bell.

This is how our council trained us. When I received my BSA shooting sports training (now 10+ years ago ... I have to remember things right), we effectively became council volunteers. This allowed us to open ranges just for our pack. I know another trainer created a range for temporary use per the BSA shooting sports manual for his pack. But, he was functioning as a council / district representative at that point and having an event just for just his pack. I remember being invited multiple times to help district / council similar events.

That's what I thought too. I suspect we have a nationwide inconsistency on re-opening lapsed liabilities.

Okay. Sounds like what I heard is wrong. I thought it was not being retroactively applied to public schools and other government orgs. I'm surprised this is not happening nation wide. I'm aware of similar rumors in my school against specific teachers. I'm betting this is nation wide and could easily be reverse applied to the 1960s and 1970s.

I recognize you can sue. What I'm saying is ... from what I understand ... the recent law changes that allowed re-establishing expired liabilities ... even decades in the past ... again from my understanding ... did not re-open expired liabilities to schools and other government organizations. If it was extended, then these lawsuits should be hitting every city, state and school district that chartered scouts for the last 50 years. If you want deep pockets, go after the school districts.

I actually think your proposal is a reasonable response. Parents failed. Teachers failed. Police failed. Many, many parts of the system failed here. If damaged needs to be made whole, it's our whole society that should pay the price.

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations? This is at least 10,400 units in 2004. From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes. BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ? From what I read below, as of 2004, 400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units? It just doesn't make sense. If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. Seriously. NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. Yes, the past abuse was outrageous. But that was the past. AND, much was done right. The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth. I doubt such files were kept by other groups. BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations. BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements. This is just wrong.

Or to add the insurance companies and their policy limits to this suit.

How could anyone protect themselves from what is happening today? How could anyone decide the proper insurance amount? How could anyone protect themselves against a drastic societal change? Most blatantly ... Laws changed to re-open lapsed liabilities. I now I've said it before, but this whole situation is ugly on top of ugly and injustice on top of injustice. Sadly, the only ones profiting are muck rackers.

I agree with you. Supreme court decided BSA vs Dale correctly, but it skewered BSA's future. I've seen a few massive screw ups related to this ... I really question BSA's relationship with their legal representation. Any lawyer worth his salt would have advised to avoid BSA vs Dale. ... There are other clear blatant massive screw ups too.

Alumni support has dropped because of heated political positioning. I'm hoping in 10 to 20 years, it returns as the support is based on getting kids outside camping and teaching responsibility and independence. IMHO, the heart of why people donate to scouting will not have changed. ... But it is not a short term fix. BSA needs to get out of the controversies. Yes and no. There was not activism, but there was systematic on-going pressure and open hypocrisy. It started with moms asking why they could not be registered leaders. Then, why could they only be cub scout leaders and not boy scout leaders. Then why not SM or ASM. ... Then, questions why staff at cub camps and boy scout summer camps are near 50% female. And why Venturing allowed female scouts, but only the male scouts could finish their Eagle scouts rank as a venturing scout. It's like tearing a bandage off. I think BSA had the fear of a long slow burn on yet another issue, while at the same time trying to save scouting membership numbers. Best to do all the big changes in a short few years than to draw it out over another 10 to 20 years. As a parent, I just don't see. In cubs, we had sister after sister want to participate. And packs would always allow them to attend, but it was for the "boys". If it really was, why did we let sisters attend as much. In boy scouts, the scouts learn many merit badges from 17 year old female scout camp staff. So, why can't those can't those staff also be members. There may not have been outside activism, but there was clearly pressure.