fred8033

For summer camp, our troop adults bought a two burner version for the adult patrol. We love it, but it's a beast. A three burner version scares me.

Very well written. I'd add a few points. Religion ... <modified your point> ... I don't want to remove religion because I value my faith. But I agree, de-emphasizing is reasonable because at no time has scouting been a primary channel for teaching faith. BUT, there needs to be a comfort and tolerance in scouting with having faith present and having a place for faith. I'm not sure we really have to do much different or if anything needs to change. It's just that I think scouting shines in the outdoors. I'm not sure scouting shines when we start talking specifics with politics or faith or STEM or .... Promote patrol over troop ... Fundamental redesign. Consider Many troops stagnate and ruin scouting for their scouts. Trouble making patrols significant and the primary unit of scouting. Troop meetings often poisoning the opinion of many scouts on scouting. Troop meetings subvert patrols as the fundamental unit of scouting. ... aka 60 to 90 minute troop meeting with 10 to 15 minutes allocated for patrols ... even then patrols have to be "released" from the troop meeting to their patrol time. Then, they are called back into the troop meeting. Worse, troop plans often leave no time for the patrols. ... IMHO, troop meeting structure 100% subverts patrols as the fundamental unit of scouting. Idea - Synthesize concepts from cubs and girl scouts to make patrols the primary unit. Scouts experience scouting in their patrols. Scout's uniform re-considered to de-emphasize troop. As much as I'd care, it could be line 1 <name> patrol line 2 <city>, <state> (city or area or ??? ), 10 to 15 patrol leaders gather to form a troop and organize troop activities. Patrols focus on being active and getting out and doing things. Patrol members help each other advance. Patrol size could be 6 to 16 scouts. Related Girl scout "Troops" are more like Boy Scout "Patrols". Cubs experience scouting mostly in their den with periodic pack activities. Rethink the need for "charter" organizations. Rather, it's a set of parents that support their patrol. ... aka like Girl Scouts Move advancement out of the patrol and troop to an organizational level. Could be district boards of review. Thoughts I'm not fully sold on if this is needed or even a good idea. ... just a suggestion to think about. My sons have benefited most when we get out to tent, bike, hike, paddle, tour, etc. My sons have benefited very very little from troop meetings. If I had my druthers, I would not have a troop meeting unless we were preparing for the next event / activity or celebrating. The idea of having a troop meeting for the sake of having a troop meeting is a thing of the past.

I agree. My view is slightly different. BSA membership changes were done to end 20 years of being a political punching bag. External groups intentionally targeting BSA for their own political purposes. The membership changes have really changed little. Yes, girls are now allowed, but it's not really anything significantly structural. I think BSA knew the membership changes would hurt as much as helped. BUT, BSA had to get out from under the abuse from other groups.

Program is king. "Active troops" attract and retain youth. Scouting leaders should keep focus here. Of course "active" does not mean meetings and sitting down quietly. "Active" means "active". Getting out. Doing things. Camping. Outings. Adventures. Some merit badges, but more about doing things. The challenge is marketing to today's "INVOLVED" parents. They are looking for one of many things. Organization? Reputation? Troop goals? Compatibility with family vision? I'm not really sure anymore. "active" can actually scare these parents away as it might hurt competing objectives. I just fear that today's INVOLVED parent changes the dynamic of scouting ... at least the ages 11 to 17 where we want the scout to experience scouting mainly on their own.

I'm not always the best at handling subtle situations like this. If it happened outside scouting ... and one kid is not showing up ... there is not much we can do. Perhaps a friendly chat might be nice with the kid that is showing up. Maybe if done well, the kid might not realize there is advice during the conversation. BUT, I am a firm believer that we as adult leaders can make things worse if we inject ourselves too much.

Slow cars move to the right lane ... Agree, but the reasoning never makes sense. It's an oxymoron ... How can drivers expect slow drivers to move right as a rule while at the same time ignoring the speed limit rule? It's hypocritical. I still agree on the rule, but it is hypocritical. ... Plus, police will penalize even low level speeders, but you have to be blatantly or dangerously slow in the left lane to get a ticket. Speeding ... In my city, there is a grace of up to 4 or 5 MPH above the limit before police stop you. After that, our city does ticket for 7 MPH over the limit. Ticketing for rolling stops. Car stops for not signaling. I've gotten caught a few times. BUT, generally our city is pretty good. So, I need to smile and say thank you. The article you quoted uses the term "ignore" to inflame and drive thought. It misrepresents how society treats speed limits. Virtually everyone I know will NOT drive 75mph in a 30mph even when no one is around at 4am. No one will drive 95mph in a 70mph. I'd say there gets to be fairly good observence at 10mph above and very good observence at 15mph above. ... Speed limits include a societal grace that we all generally agree. Most of us are fairly comfortable at 35mph in a 30. BUT, I know many home owners who will yell and pursue neighbors who drive 45mph past their house in a 30mph zone. ... "Ignore" is a poorly chosen term. There are societal norms applied to most rules. Even with the speeding societal grace, liability starts much earlier. When things go bad (accidents, damage, death), if you are violating that speed limit at the time, you will be summarily judged at fault. Driving 45mph in a 30mph neighborhood and you hit a kid ... even if you stop and call an ambulance ... I'm betting you will be arrested and charged. I'm not sure the level, but there would be a charge. I'd argue that's similar to G2SS. BSA makes the limits clear. BSA scouter community is pretty clear too on any grace on the boundaries. BUT, if you choose to ignore those, I'd expect you are exposing yourself, your family and your assets to personal liability too. ... AND moral guilt too. I can't say I'm 100% clean .. .ummm laser tag ... but we are hard line on most of the limits. For example, even before G2SS, we tried to keep test sharing to kids of similar age. It's just common sense. ... Hard lines on safe swim defense and safety afloat. Pretty good observence on weather dangers too. YPT pretty absoute.

Work with that newer councilor. Move past the SM and just get it done. It's sad when things like this happen, but in reality ya want your kid working with adults that want them to succeed. And, the vast majority of scouters are that type of person.

LOL ... colorful intrepresentation of history. ... based on settlement of a massive anti-trust lawsuit. One of my final undergraduate courses was an independent research project for credit based on the AT&T breakup. 80 typed pages of research ... before Google, before search engines and largely before the modern internet. Libraries. Copy machines. Phone calls. A retired AT&T employee sent me a book they had called Heritage & Destiny by Alvin von Auw. I still have the book. I was about to donate it to Goodwill. https://www.amazon.com/Heritage-destiny-Reflections-System-transition/dp/0030696070 AT&T is a fascinating case The problem understanding the breakup is it's so absolutely huge, painfully detailed, drawn out over years and the implications go every direction.

It's not a real choice. BSA has a structure to create a youth program that charter orgs can use. That youth program is part of a brotherhood of other youth programs around the world. The charter org can create something very special and unique to their organization ... BUT it's without the boundaries of the scouting program.

G2SS is interesting to follow there ... It says ... Tenting Separate tenting arrangements must be provided for male and female adults as well as for male and female youth. Youth sharing tents must be no more than two years apart in age. In Cub Scouting, parents and guardians may share a tent with their family. In all other programs, youth and adults tent separately. Spouses may share tents. Seems writing should be cleared up. Points #1 & #2 are the real rules here. As for points #3, #4 and #5, those are more comments or directions about the program. At least, they did not use MUST such as #1 and #2. I'd rather see the RULES (#1 and #2) be called out as they are simple and concise. The rest are really just commentary. We often do this when writing requirements. The requirements are explicit: MUST. Then, the requirements are often followed with context (which is what I see #3, #4 and #5).

I started this thread to suggest a framework to teach out scouts leadership. Failed, I have.

@ParkMan ... Well said. So leaders visiting or asking to visit is the reaching out from outside leaders to the unit. How does the unit respond? We're scouters. Friendly service. Servant leaders, etc, etc. Absolutely fine to try to figure out root concern, open communication and maybe even get it addressed in advance. Beyond that though, we are friendly toward our fellow scouters.

No. It's not a sexual thing. I used the analogy. ... As with YPT where I've been taught to look for signs, there are other signs for other issues. The question is why would anyone not welcome people from the same organization to see what they are doing. That's a red flag for a group that is going a different direction and perhaps a direction that contradicts fundamental assumptions / directions/ guidance. Heck, as a parent, my kids can do certain specific things that raises red flags and makes me more alert.

It's from training that teaches warning signs. For example, an adult touching the hair of a non-related child is a red flag. A member organization not welcoming leaders from the same organization is also a red flag. It does scare me. What are they hiding? What's the concern?

Yeah. Units can pretend to be independent, but their not. It's a fallacy. Ya wear the uniform. Ya buy the boy scout handbook. Ya sign the form. Ya submit the Eagle applications. Ya walk the brand. Most importantly, BSA national bankruptcy is not happening because abuse that happened in the corporate office lunch room. It happened in the units. Now, national is being held accountable because of unit leader abuses. That's what the courts are saying. Courts are saying BSA national is paying for unit damages. My apologies, but your exact statements scare me. I can't say I'm 100% perfect following BSA's guidance, but I try my best and I work hard at it. We need to show that we are trying our best. Essentially, explicitly saying you sign kids up as BSA scouts, but then say you're independent scares the crap out of me. I'm not sure where the difference is? Or why to emphasize the independence? You probably run a great program. But those statements scare me. It absolutely TRUELY scares me that you would not welcome a council or national visitor to your unit. That's a red flag that I'll trust is just bravado in the conversation. I'm not sure where the independence would popup, but it scares me. Unregistered leaders on camp outs? Unapproved activities? Singing to get your stuff back ? I'm sure what the real issue is. Emphasizing grievances, differences and independence just scares me.

Perhaps there is a way to turn the "BSA vs UNIT" to reflect on Authentic leadership. So much distrust could be driven by non-aligned goals. Unit leaders want their unit health, active and great experiences for their scouts. BSA leaders need membership, growth and visibility of BSA as a product / value statement. So often we see this as national leaders only talking to units when it involves recruitment or problems that have happened. We think of ourselves as one team, but it's not really true. BSA (national and councils) have an annual cycle of talking to units that have little to do with unit program. (fall recruitment, recruitment, popcorn sales, fundraisers, etc). None of those directly help the unit accomplish unit goals. Units may do more on their own for recruitment, but it's usually disconnected from national / council. Further, units rarely see BSA national talking about camping, advancement, fun, etc except through publications. Instead, units see external pressure about external goals with little care for the unit goals themselves. Perhaps the BSA could promote trust and connection by better aligning the goals of the unit with the BSA goals. Maybe this means splitting BSA's organization so that membership, risk, fundraising, etc is separate from unit interaction. ... I'm not sure, but this seems to be part of the broken chain.

I avoid the "bad kids" debate. My view is scouting can be good for everyone, but everyone is not good for scouting. Each individual has to be willing to work within scouting's boudnaries and expectations. If the individual can't, then the individual should find somewhere else to spend their time.

I just removed my latest response. Ya know ... I wanted to assert a good framework through which we can teach leadership. Perhaps, this channel shows we can't do that. Maybe we stop pretending to teach leadership and just stick to knots.

We should tone down. The CO / BSA relationship is not a perfect marriage. It's a Venn diagram. There are things that BSA supports and the CO can't and vice versa. The program works in the common center. ... For example, paintball. Probably okay for many COs, but not BSA. As such, paint ball should not be part of the scouting program in that CO. I'm sure we can apply the same common center approach for many things from activates to safety to advancement to membership. For me, Guide To Safe Scouting is most difficult for me with laser tag. BUT, on the other hand, I am extremely hesitant with other things such as canoe trips. I've had my young sons on long river canoe trips with me. BUT, I would not take a 4th grade Cub Scout den on a river canoe trip even if it's hosted by a local state park and I view it as reasonably safe. The key point is GTSS says no and I don't want to accept the liability if something happened as I've already been told it's not acceptable.

Authenticity is a line of research centered around being an effective leader. And this is far wider than just business circles. It can be applied 100% to clubs, military and social circles. "Primary point of being a leader is to accomplish things." ... No. That's one characteristic of leadership. I can get a huge amount done without anyone helping. I can get a huge amount of done by bully or dictating. But many of us would not want to call a bully, a dictator or a guy working by himself a leader. Being a leader is about getting people to follow you, setting objectives and having those people work with you to accomplish those goals. "Authenticity" is a simple term around a larger academic branch of leadership research that I find fascinating. I think that line of research would be very useful to teach our scouts leadership.

Absolutely agree. Years ago ... and we've fallen away from this ... our patrols each had a monthly activity. Most of their patrol meeting was about that monthly activity. Maybe a movie. Maybe a game. Maybe something else. The key was the patrol mtg was about doing something they wanted to do. Yes and no. Scouts do learn best by seeing behaviors and repeating them. BUT, reflections is critical to develop and ingrain permanent skills. A passive leadership example I remember very very well was between my oldest son's troop and a younger son's troop. In the older son's troop, we consciously set a practice that if one person was working, we were all working. AND adults teach by setting the example. If an adult was working, we got up and helped. ... If scouts were working, we did our best as adults to find something to do ourselves too. ... We don't leave someone working on their own. We're a team. We value each other. We help each other. We are considerate. Many times, I'd have a task and usually more than enough people would get up and ask if they could help. ... A reflection of cheerful service. My younger son's troop had a practice that each scout was responsible for their own stuff. Fine. I can understand. But it went way too far. ... My son and I arrived late to camp because of conflicts. His buddy and his tent were not setup. His buddy's gear was sitting next to the tent bag. ... that itself upset me ... It was left to be setup in the dark until we arrived. I setup my tent ... on my own. (fine, I've done it many times) ... In my first troop, that scout tent would have been setup by other scouts stepping up to help. Instead people sat around the camp fire and essentially watched my son and his friend setup their tent and watched me setup mine. ... By the time I was done, I was pissed. I really didn't want to talk to any of the other adults. Their sitting without making the most minimal effort to help showed that I was not valued. ... I thought I had offended someone. ... But it turns out that's the troop's personality. ... It made me sad as it was a lesson I did not want my son to learn. ... He and I talked about it later. How did it make you feel? What did you wish would have happened? What example would you want to set? ... Key point I tried to communicate ... I expect my son to get off his butt and help. Period.

For the first time, I heard leadership described as authenticity. I didn't know that was an old representation. I wish I heard that representation 15 years ago. I think it's a great term around which to teach leadership and relate attributes of leadership. I think we as scouters can use the term "authenticity" as a teaching tool. For many years I've assserted BSA unit leaders should stop explicitly teaching "leadership" as so many leaders do an absolute horrible job at it. Often I see bad examples, demoralized scouts or explicitly the exact oppositve of what I view as good leadership. Instead, I've suggested using very simple scoutmaster moments and then mainly focus on keeping the scouts active and inspired to do new things the the scouts themselves get invested in doing. BUT, my recent reading on "Authenticity may be changing my opinion. https://hbr.org/2005/12/managing-authenticity-the-paradox-of-great-leadership What if we use "Authenticity" as a primary tool to teach leadership ? What is it? How do we live it?. Authenticity is NOT necessarily an innate quality. You can consciously groom and develop it. Authenticity is a quality that others must attribute to you. People want to be led by someone “real.” People see authenticity as sincerity, honesty, and integrity. Ensure that your words are consistent with your deeds. aka ... practice what you preach Look for honest feedback. Beware people telling who only tell you what you want to hear. Pursue experiences outside your comfort zone as they sharpen social awareness ... aka SCOUTING Effectively manage your own relationship with your past and your followers’ connections to their roots. ... “authenticity” as “of undisputed origin.” Insatiable interest in the complex factors that reveal where his direct reports come Finding common ground with the people you seek to recruit as followers ... it's not about being false, but selectively revealing parts of who you are Conformity versus being brash Too much conformity can render leaders ineffective; Too little conformity can isolate them. To influence others, authentic leaders must first gain at least minimal acceptance as members of their organizations. Great leaders understand that their reputation for authenticity needs to be painstakingly earned and carefully managed. Heck ... I think I could do a year worth of scoutmaster minutes around "authenticity".

It depends how you define "high adventure". One person's adventure is another person's normal weekend. High adventure in context of my experiences New and challenging experiences --> BSA Sea Base ... Activities that we just can't do where I live. Physically demanding --> Philmont ... Carrying a heavy pack for 6 to 10 miles each day. Setup. Tear down. Hike. Hike. Hike. Dependent on your own crew for health, safety and success --> Northern Tier ... You are significantly further out and isolated than any of the other adventures. Help and comfort are an hour away. Maybe not a day or more away either. Cost --> All ... 😁 Each can also be viewed as not a high-adventure. BSA Sea Base ... Expensive toys and the beach. BSA Philmont ... A week of summer camp activities with a BSA second class five mile hike at the start of each day BSA Northern Tier ... A canoe trip. I've been on several high adventures and I cherish all of them. Sea Base though holds a special place for me. It was a unique adventure different than any of our other adventures.

Is there a difference between insurance and liability? If your council has the camps closed because they say it's not safe ... and you as a leader take your scouts elsewhere, you may be "insured", but are you still facing liability for ignoring council recommendations? I'm not a lawyer. I've always wondered about this.

I view parent attendance aligned with a term a girl scout professional taught me years ago: progressive responsibility. Lions - Parents should be there 100% of the time. Arrow of light cubs - often separate. New Boy scout - mostly separate 1st class - almost always separate Eagle scout - don't even ask It's a progression and it often depends on the youth ... and the parent ... lol.