KC9DDI

Just a guess, but perhaps since Scouts do things like wear uniforms and sleep in tents on a fairly regular basis with their own troops, this brochure was created to highlight some of the more unusual or exotic activities available at Jambo. Or maybe the thought was the Scouts would already expect to be wearing uniforms and sleeping in tents at Jambo, and they wanted to draw attention to some of the non-obvious activities that would be available.

I'd also recommend against using four images from one brochure as a basis for assuming that an entire program's "emphasis" has changed.

Not everything is a conspiracy against traditional Scouting. Scouting's a big place - there's lots of unique programs, activities and options available to our millions of registered youth. The fact that your favorite activity didn't get featured on one specific brochure isn't evidence that the entire program is going to come crashing down.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

If one of the OA's greatest strengths is an illusion, rather than something of substance... well, maybe that's the problem right there.

Hmmm... sounds to me that there something more going on here to warrant a 25 year grudge...

We don't feel that we are denying our Scouts access to OA. We are denying agressive OA recruiters access to our Scouts.

Well, fair enough. I personally don't much care for the OA, but at least it sounds like you'll let your Scouts explore the possibility if it's something that they want to do.

many some of the "pros" I have met it seems like just a job.

Well... for them, it is just a job. It's their day job (that often spills over into nights and weekends.) As long as they're doing their job, I don't have a problem.

I guess I'm wondering what is meant by "trust" in this sense? There's plenty of Scouters, both volunteer and professional, who I don't consider to be trustworthy. But I don't think that the level of the program at which they operate (local, council, national...) affects their trustworthiness.

Do I agree with every decision made at a council or at a national level? No I don't. But I also don't "distrust" the volunteers and professionals at those levels - I don't feel like they're out to get me, or anything like that. I don't think there's any conspiracy working to destroy Scouting from the top down. So yes, I trust that they're doing what they feel they need to do. But sometimes I wish they'd think to do something else.

I know, both from personal experience and from reading horror stories on this forum, that there's a number of volunteer Scouters who have been seriously wronged by volunteers and professionals at the district level and higher. But I think that most districts and councils are generally filled with decent, hardworking people trying to do their best within the constraints they have to work with. But there seems to be this attitude that anyone who is involved with Scouting in an area other than a unit is automatically an incompetent, greedy fool whose sole mission is to disrupt your unit's program and extort you for money.

While I'm not denying that there's some incompetent, greedy fools sullying our program, I can't figure out why that stigma is getting applied so liberally. Say a district charges $5 for a camporee weekend - people are up in arms that the district isn't operating the program at a loss! Clearly the volunteers or the council should just be eating the cost, rather than charging a fair price to cover expenses. Or say the council office gets a fresh coat of paint - Scouters whine and moan that the council is wasting money - but don't the people the have to work in that building each day deserve a halfway modern, comfortable, maintained work environment?

In general, I don't really think "it's a matter of trust." I think it's more a matter of a bandwagon mentality that districts, councils and national aren't capable of making good decisions at all, ever. I think a lot of Scouters honestly expect to be getting something for nothing. But those who work at a district level and higher aren't any more capable to pull a quality program out of thin air than you are - some things just cost money, time and effort. And all three of those things are often in short supply.

Have you ever had a parent make an unreasonable complaint about the cost of an event, or the quality of an event within your troop or pack? Have you ever been frustrated trying to explain that you had to charge enough money to cover expenses, or that unforeseen circumstances developed causing the program to take a hit? It's the same deal when unit level volunteers confront district and council level volunteers.

Hi David - Just curious, has the question of whether to become involved with the OA been revisited by the current membership of your unit, within the past 25 years or so?

But I see your point about the cartoon-ey imitation of Native American culture that the OA can promote. I guess I don't see it as offensive, per se... just silly. And I think that's probably a big component as to why the OA is in decline. Most Scouts just aren't interested in the imitation Indian costume and dance routine.

That said, I guess I still don't understand why you would refuse to at least present it as an option to your Scouts. It seems like one poor experience 25 years ago isn't a very good reason for refusing your Scouts access to the program today. Personally I don't care for the program very much, and your Scouts may not either - but why not at least give them the opportunity?

And here I was worried about whether or not we would be able to tie the decline of the Patrol Method with a man's posture while urinating...

Hi Bart - I think you were talking to me?

you're saying that Google and Facebook should stop allowing websites to interface with Google and Facebook accounts?

Well, I would like that, honestly. But, if it bothers me enough, I can always opt out of my account. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? What you're saying is that essentially Google and Facebook have an obligation to provide APIs for their software. They decided it was in their best interest to make such APIs available. But the BSA, which is in a radically different market, decided that it is not in their best interest. Frankly I agree.

So you're saying that Amazon.com should provide you with the means to write a superior interface to their backend database? After all, the passwords already exist... (?)

I agree that ScoutNet probably isn't a model of security in software design, but that doesn't mean that the BSA should disregard whatever secure measures might currently exist, and open it up to anyone...

so if they haven't gotten back to me yet it's because National doesn't want to get back to me.

To play devil's advocate - wouldn't it be irresponsible for an organization that stores personal, demographic information for millions of past and current youth members, and additional information on adults, community organizations, etc - to provide information on "interfacing" with that database to every Tom, Dick or Harry that contacts them online?

Others are right - It will likely take a few days to a few weeks for Google to get your site indexed. The more links you have pointing to your site, the more quickly Google will "find" it, and the higher it will rank in it's search results.

You can try to help Google find it a little bit faster by going to www.google.com/addurl/ and typing in the URL of your site.

So a 3-month old thread gets dug up, and the next two responses are polar opposites - "be nice," followed by a prediction that gays will want to go "back in the closet."

I'm personally not overly impressed with either argument.

Serious studies show that homosexuals are much more "tolerant" of pedophile sex than your basic heterosexual males

That's very interesting, and concerning. Could you point me to one of these serious studies, as I'd really like to see that evidence first hand?

At age 11, what kid REALLY understands sexuality

Fair enough, but the point is that, even at age 11, he is definitely feeling and experiencing something. And there's a fine line between telling him that he might not yet fully understand what those feelings mean, versus being wrong about having the feelings at all.

And what's a "gay pressure advocate?"

drmbear - I think you're over-simplifying the issue a bit. While I personally feel that the BSA is in the wrong based on it's baseless legitimization of discrimination, I don't think that "be nice" really addresses the solution. The reality of the situation is that there are practices, beliefs and lifestyles that I don't think are compatible with Scouting, and that I don't think youngsters need to be exposed to in a Scouting context. Granted, homosexuality and atheism doesn't particularly bother me - but there are plenty of "nice" people who I don't believe have a place in the Scouting program.

As far as religion goes, sure it can be used for powers of evil. But don't be fooled into thinking that these wars are based on religion. Even in the middle East, or in Northern Ireland, or even the Crusades - it's about power, money and resources. Religion can and has been used as a weapon, but trivializing these conflicts as "religious wars" is not entirely accurate.

I can try to address a least a few of your concerns.

First, I think you might be misunderstanding the legal definition of a non-profit organization, like your council. Basically, for an organization to be legally classified as "non-profit," the organization can't pay out any profit at the end of the fiscal year to its owners or shareholders. Any excess funds must be re-invested into the organization (such as into equipment, facilities, and yes, professionals salaries.) It does NOT mean that each individual event, like a camporee, can't do more than break even financially. So yes, it's typically for events like camporees, some training events, day camps and summer camps to net the council a bit of money when all is said and done. I think $1-$1.50 per boy "profit" for the council is pretty standard for an event like this.

does it take $2000 to run a BSA camp for 2 days when they are not including food?

Have you ever tried to run a camp for 400 scouts for $2000 dollars? It sounds like a lot of money, until you need to purchase program supplies, first aid supplies, rent port-a-potties and other equipment, prepare the facility for use, etc. Even little things like trash bags, batteries for walkie talkies, rope, tent stakes, etc start to add up. I'd be very impressed with any district that puts on a quality program for 400 scouts, plus however many adults, for $2000. And that $1/boy that goes to council? Well, by the time you pay the camp ranger (assuming this was held on council property), pay for tractor fuel to prepare the facility, pay for utilities and maintenance on the buildings and improved structures used during the event, pay for maintenance and eventual replacement of things like rain flies and other program material... the council ends up making a negligible amount of "profit" when all is said and done.

I personally don't think that $5 for a weekend of program is overcharging. In fact, that's on the lower end, based on events that I've been involved with. As far as low income families go, often units and councils can work together to subsidize or waive fees, based on individual circumstances. That might be something to speak with your DE and UC about.

Regarding charging leaders, there's many different ways to handle that. My personal opinion is to offer the leaders a discounted rate as compared to the youth, given that the leaders won't be participating in the program to the same extent that the kids will be. But I also think there's some validity to just charging the same fee per person. It depends on the particular venue. I guess I would hope that if $5 were the difference between gaining and losing a qualified adult leader, the powers that be could figure out how to keep the leader.

Without having been at the particular event you're talking about, or knowing more about it, I can't speculate as to whether you got your money's worth for the weekend. But, just based on my own experience in organizing and planning events at a district and council level, I'm not seeing anything too outrageous in your story.

I think it kind of depends on the size, maturity and dynamics of your troop. But, in general, my gut feeling is that your committee is on the right track. It seems like there's a lot of problems that can arise from a group of kids knowing roughly how "rich or poor" their peers are.

There may be some other options, though. It sounds like you have a pretty technologically advanced group - could you look into some automated way to email account balances to the appropriate scouts/parents at the beginning of each month? Or, the low-tech way is just to print out a hard copy of an account statement even couple months, and distribute it.

trainerlady - this may have changed in the past couple years, but a few years ago I worked at a council Scout Shop, and we did in fact collect the "council portion" of the blue card before selling merit badges. I believe the instructions to the scout said "turn this part in to your unit leader," but the unit leader was then to turn it into the council when picking up the merit badges. One of the triplicate Advancement Record sheets was also required for merit badges (and, in fact, for nearly all Boy Scout, Venturing and Cub Scout rank and award patches).

Technically, we were supposed to ensure a 1-to-1 match between blue cards turned in, and merit badges sold. In practice, I would try to do that for a purchase of a few merit badges. But when the 80-scout Eagle Mill troop came in after summer camp with a wheelbarrow full of blue cards and an order for 300 merit badges, the checking was a bit more lax :-)

The Yorktown is an unusual situation where idealistic YP hits reality

"Idealistic YP" for me is an environment where Scouts are protected from harm, and have safe, appropriate interactions with adult leaders and their own peers. Not blindly following a bunch of guidelines simply because they exist, without affording any additional thought or common sense for the matter.

The 'Separate Accomodations' doctrine was written to prevent predators form getting alone with youth.

For starters, it's not a doctrine. It's a guideline, that happens to be generally a very good idea. Also, YP in general addresses more concerns than just sexual predators. As I said, it's about creating a safe, appropriate and comfortable environment for our youth members. Obviously protection from sexual predators is an important component of that goal (though, hopefully, not the most common one.) I'd say the "separate accommodations" guideline is a good idea, even if there are no sexual predators present, simply because it removes a level of discomfort involved with youth and adults changing clothes in the same area. Even if there's no "oggling" going on, it's clear why that would make youth uncomfortable.

The council I'm working with changed for this first time this year to a vendor other than Trails End. Reactions so far have generally been positive - in terms of quality, price and value for money, as compared to Trails End. The council also seems a little happier dealing with this vendor, rather than Trails End. We're also using a local vendor, which I think helps make it an easier sell.

The downside that we've seen is a slight reduction in variety (which apparently hasn't really harmed sales much). Also, while the boxes and tins of popcorn that Trails End sold featured the Scouting logo and Scouting-related graphics, this vendor's packaging does not. Probably not a huge problem, but something to keep in mind if that's important to you. Though, as I understand it, the hope is that we might be able to work with this vendor in the coming years to feature Scouting-related images on the packaging.

Could I ask for some clarification on two issues:

acco, I wasn't aware that there was any guideline pertaining to an adult entering an unoccupied tent of a youth. I know that adults and children cannot share (ie, occupy at the same time) a tent, but I would think that unit leaders and parents have some ability to enter and search unoccupied tents, when appropriate.

JoeBob, how does a guideline about tents apply to aircraft carriers?(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

One would hope that the appropriate course of action in such cases would be obvious to responsible adults, regardless of any "guidelines" published by a corporation.

One would hope that the appropriate course of action in such cases would be obvious to responsible adults, regardless of any "guidelines" published by a corporation.

Absolutely right Scoutfish. If you have a legitimate suspicion that a youth has been harmed, you need to call the police. Not the CEO of a small business (aka, the Scout Executive.) The SE's goal in such matters is to mitigate the negative affects on his business interests. Unfortunately, that goal isn't always compatible with ensuring the health and safety of the youth in the Scouting program.

EBOR: "since Eagle projects are required to have 'lasting value', tell us..."

Scout: "Well, I believe that this project, while not physically constructing anything, has given 'benefiting organization' a positive experience working with Troop 123, and of Scouting in general, which I hope will be of lasting value to both organizations. I also hope that other members of the community who assisted us, or just observed us working on the project, will also have a lasting positive impression of Scouting. For me personally, I believe that this experience has helped develop my organizational and leadership skills, which will be of lasting value to me as I prepare to go to college/get a job/enter the armed forces/etc."

Scoutfish - I think we're talking about two different groups of people. One is a group who treat emergency services as a tax-funded taxi service, that they are entitled to make use of for any and all purposes. This group either doesn't know or care of the dangers presented to others in the community who may be suffering from a life threatening emergency while the nearest ambulance is busy driving a guy with a tick bite to the ED.

I think the group of people you're referring to are those who go into denial when they are faced with a potential health problem. Sure, they know that their chest pain could be an MI, and should call an ambulance, but instead they talk themselves into believing it's just heart burn. It's not that they're uneducated, or that they don't want to bother emergency services - it's that they don't want to admit to themselves that they might have a life-threatening problem. I'm sure you've seen this before in your line or work, right? :-)

Again, nobody says to call an ambulance for pine cone scratches, or dirty kneees.

But yet people do, all the time! And, apparently for tick bites, too!

The person who called EMS does not have the training to know the difference.

And that's the problem. It has nothing to do with training - it has to do with education on how to appropriately use emergency services, and also has to do with common sense. Don't we teach Cub Scouts how to recognize "hurry cases," and what types of injuries are and aren't emergencies? And for the people who legitimately don't know the difference, that's why EMS, hospitals and other community organizations educate people on how to appropriately use our emergency services, and how to appropriately access the health care system. And that education rarely comes in the form of, "when in doubt, call!" Don't believe me? Check this out: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=126252

We all know that many serious conditions can present in a similar way as non-serious conditions. I'm not criticizing people who are experiencing legitimate symptoms of an MI and call 911, but in the end it turns out to be heart burn. I am criticizing people who refuse to use any common sense at all, and instead take a "when in doubt, call 911!" attitude.

Realistically, would you encourage anyone experiencing heart burn to immediately call 911 and go to the ED, just in case it's an MI? ("When in doubt!", right?) If people took you up on this, two things would happen:

1) The makers of Tums would go out of business

2) EMS services and hospital EDs would rapidly become overwhelmed (that is, more overwhelmed than they already are) with "patients" with no emergent medical condition.

Hi Kudu - Some very good points.

Back when we could refer to patrols as patrols, we did very strongly emphasize how a functional patrol works, and how that relates to a functional troop. We also focused heavily on developing the patrol leader, and training him to, well, lead a patrol... Now we don't do that.

The most obvious criterion is how well they do with Baden-Powell's minimum standard for the Patrol System (150-300 feet between Patrols on Troop campouts).

Maybe the most obvious, but probably not the most useful. We spaced our patrols at least 300 feet apart in the old program, and continue to place our "small teams" at least 300 feet apart in the new program (ok, to be fair, we have one camp site that's a little on the smaller side, so we're probably looking at 150-200 feet for the troop that occupies that site.) Unfortunately the distance between patrols isn't helping us overcome some deficiencies in the core training material.

SSS - I guess I don't understand how a tick bite justifies an ambulance? I'll believe that it might require a trip to the ED relatively urgently, but why the call to 911?

Arterial bleeding - sure, that's obviously a life threatening emergency. And I believe we still teach our scouts to handle it as a "hurry case." Though I'm not sure how you could have arterial bleeding and not know it, unless it was some kind of internal bleeding?

It's not just about paying taxes, it's about ensuring that emergency resources are available in true emergencies. Because every time you call for the fire or EMS departments and it's not an emergency, someone else who has an actual emergency at that time now needs to wait longer for assistance to arrive. Also remember that different parts of the country are being affected differently. Like I said before, there may be less of a concern in sparsely populated, rural areas. But needless calls to 911 are causing enormous problems densely populated urban areas. I know of one city whose 911 dispatchers are prioritizing calls in such a way that callers with obvious non-emergency conditions are being told that no ambulance will be sent. Other callers are having to wait several hours for an ambulance to arrive. Even those with true, life threatening emergencies are having to wait a long time for help to arrive, when all of the ambulances are busy with non-emergency work.

Remember, 911 and EMS are NOT primary gateways into our health care system. 911 is reserved for EMERGENCY situations. An ambulance is not your personal taxi service, even if you're OK with "paying the taxes."

I'm not passing judgement on the young man mentioned in the OP's post, as no information was provided on the situation, so it's impossible to try to see what could have been done differently. Regardless, it's important to remember the purpose of 911 and emergency services, and educate ourselves on what the appropriate ways to access health care is, depending on the situation.

As another first responder person myself, I'd just like to add that the recommendations of a first responder in a case like this should be taken with a grain of salt. It's kind of like asking a car salesman if he thinks you need a new car :-) For example, did you know that up to 50% of patients transported to a hospital via medical helicopter are discharged within 24 hours of arriving? The decision to call the helicopter is often based on a similar marketing slogan from the air medical company - "when in doubt, just call! we don't mind!" Of course, they don't mind overcharging patients tens of thousands of dollars for an unnecessary service, and exposing both the patient and the air medical crew to an incredible safety risk :-)

Also, even among first responders, the advice you get is going to vary on each person's background. While a volunteer with a lower-volume ambulance service may quip "those responding don't mind, that's why they are there!", I'll bet that a firefighter or paramedic with a busy, urban service won't be so thrilled with another 3am 911 call for a tooth ache or sore throat.

There was a recent case where an elderly woman and several children were killed in a house fire. The house within a city block of a fire station. But at the time of the fire, the crew from the nearest fire station was out at a non-emergency call, while the crew from the next closest station couldn't arrive in time. I doubt that it "made their day" when the crew from the nearby fire station found that the call they responded to wasn't an emergency, while several people were dieing in a house fire down the street from their fire station.

Regarding the original poster's case, it's difficult to determine how to respond, without a better idea of what the original situation was (How old was the scout, what was he ill with, what instructions did his doctor and parents give him, etc). While people should never be discouraged from calling 911 if they legitimately believe that it's an emergency, "When in doubt, call 911" is certainly NOT the right answer.

back to the original question: How might it be made better?

From where it is now, I think we need to drop the generic, one-course-fits-all-programs method, and instead focus on providing targeted, specific, advanced training to Boy Scouts and to Venturers, directed towards the unique elements in their own respective programs. In other words, we need scrap the most recent modifications to the course.

If we reach that point, I think we need to practice what we preach and evaluate the effectiveness of the current curriculum. For example, are all of the "buzz words" and acronyms effective, or do the Scout's reject them as too childish? Could we better balance classroom time with Scoutcraft and activities? Could we better balance the video portions of the training sessions with "live" interaction between the staff members and the participants? Unfortunately it seems like these types of curriculum questions have fallen to the side when we unnecessarily tried to introduce Venturers to the program.

Now it could be argued that I'm just resisting change of any kind. So a bit of a history lesson: back around 2005 or so, a major revision to the NYLT program was made. The program name changed from JLTC (Junior Leader Training Conference) to NYLT. The syllabus received a huge overhaul, and the NYLT program and JLTC program don't have very much in common at all. At the time when the changes were being made, there was a great deal of suspicion, unhappiness, stamping of feet and ruffling of feathers. However, after running the new program for a year or two, it became obvious that NYLT was much more effective at actually training youth leaders, and developing valuable skills. Sure, there are one or two specific areas that I feel the old course did better, but overall NYLT was a huge improvement in nearly every area. So, in my experience anyway, even those who were initially most opposed to the new program quickly came around, because it was so obvious that the youth responded better to it.

What concerns me is I'm not seeing this with the recent changes involving Venturing. I'm not seeing a drastic improvement in the benefits that Boy Scouts or Venturers are getting from the course, and I'm not seeing any evidence that any of the long-time staffers are becoming comfortable with the new program. Which has me very concerned about the long-term success of NYLT in general, unless National wakes up and starts making some changes.