KC9DDI

That's still not the point... I have never disputed a parent's right to observe any part of the Scouting program, or have access to their child at any time on a Scouting event.

My question pertains to the act of having a CONVERSATION with a parent, REQUESTING that they not exercise that right for a specific activity, because we feel that the program will be stronger, and the youth will have a better experience, if the parent does not observe or attend.

My question is - why is that conversation acceptable, or even encouraged, in certain settings (eg, while camping with the troop); when that EXACT SAME conversation is considered a Youth Protection violation when it comes to the OA?

I'm not debating what's in the G2SS, or anything else - yes, parents absolutely have a right to observe any and all Scouting functions. What I can't figure out is how a having a conversation with a parent, explaining our goals, methods and preferences, is such a terrible idea.

Tampa - That's not the concern (or at least not my concern). I'm NOT saying that we should tolerate prohibiting parents from observing OA ceremonies, or from having access to their children. If a parent demands to attend a ceremony, camp next to their child, whatever - we have to allow that.

However, SP and others have equated the act of having a CONVERSATION with the parents on why we would PREFER them not to attend OA ceremonies with a "youth protection violation."

What I am asking is, why is it OK to discourage parents from participating in certain activities with their children (patrol camping), but not OK for other activities (OA ceremonies)?

Have you ever had a parent attend summer camp with their brand new Scout son? Have you ever explained to the parent the role of the youth and adult leadership in the troop, and how the Scouts are to camp with their patrols, while the adults camp separately from them? Have you ever had to request or remind a parent that they need to give their son and his patrol some space - to let the Scout work with his patrol, and for the adults to stay away from them?

How is it that the above example is a perfectly valid way to educate and inform parents how our program works, and why we ask them to do certain things - but having a similar conversation about an OA ceremony is suddently a "Youth Protection" issue?

Seems like an excellent program option to offer the Venturing program, or at High Adventure facilities - but I'm not sold on making it part of the mainline Boy Scout program.

Who do I approach( committee or PLC)

Your son, the Scout, should work with his PL and PLC if he feels that the current policy is not fair.

Changing the name of the party seems fair, if it's a big issue for you.

I'm a little surprised to see the word "coerce" juxtaposed with "community service." I'm guessing the issue runs deeper than just a Christmas party...

The fact that you mention that the SPL was involved in the decision (or at least in the explanation of the decision to you) seems like a positive sign. Perhaps your son can discuss with his PL or the PLC about whether the policy on the Christmas party is justified or not.

Your post wasn't really clear on the situation, so I can't begin to imagine whether or not the policy is "good" for the troop, but at least it sounds like there's an opportunity for the youth leadership to evaluate the situation, and adjust if they see the need.

My council is currently in the middle of trying to do an overhaul of one of its camp properties. While obviously a much smaller project than the development of a brand new high adventure base, it did provide some perspective as to how quickly costs can grow. It seems like a majority of the time and money spent on the project has been related to compliance with local and state laws and guidelines. Regulations on shower and bathroom facilities, plumbing and septic systems, kitchen and food storage, sleeping facilities, etc... it all adds to the cost of constructing the facility. It's not that the council is being wasteful, or non-thrifty - it's a matter of being forced to comply with over-the-top state and local laws. So, yes, it's easy to pontificate that you and 6 of your buddies can build a shower house in a weekend with some donated PVC and plywood, so why is it a multi-million dollar project for the council... But, remember, the council is responsible for ensuring the project meets health department guidelines, and is also robust enough to be used and maintained for years.

But it really just seems like a matter of not being able to please everyone. People gripe when a BSA property is sold, people gripe when the BSA buys new properties. People gripe when camp facilities are neglected and fall into disrepair, and people gripe when money is spent on improving the facilities. Everybody thinks they have "something better" to spend money on. Whatever.

Thus far, from what I can tell, it looks like the Summit project is generally going to be a good thing, and a good investment. Setting aside land, facilities and opportunities JUST FOR SCOUTING is a GOOD THING for Scouting. Developing a high-quality program, facilities and infrastructure on that land is a GOOD THING. That may come at a high price, but this is exactly the kind of thing that I LIKE to see Scouting's money spent on - directly providing facilities and program opportunities for our youth!

I think Venturing's great strength is also it's greatest weakness. It's a very, very flexible program, with almost everything presented as an optional component, that individual crews can pick and choose from in order to devise their own program.

It's a strength for crews with a strong sense of teamwork, direction, motivation and goals. But it tends to be a weakness for units who are looking for more of a "packaged product" of structured program.

I think the overlap in target audience between troops and crews can also be a blessing or a curse, depending on the individual unit. In cases where troops and crews don't have a very close relationship, there can sometimes be conflict between troop and crew leadership, who can view one another as "stealing" their youth. However, a "standalone" crew can often have a stronger unique identity, stronger leadership corps, etc.

Poor spelling and grammar aside, when did it become a "civic duty" to spy on and report your neighbors to Big Brother?

Blanc - That is correct, but it also seems like a matter of word games, as opposed to substance.

Yes, being in the country illegally is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. It is, however, a matter of law either way, and the common definition of a crime is an act that violates the law, regardless of whether it is pursued through civil or criminal channels.

That's all that I was getting at - wasn't trying to debate the difference between civil and criminal law. It had sounded to me like you were suggesting that violations of civil law were somehow less serious than violations of criminal law - I may have misinterpreted that, but I do feel that it's important that we DON'T give that message to our Scouts.

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237?

but just wanted to point out that merely being an illegal alien in the country is not necessarily a crime.

How do you figure?

I'm a fairly liberal person on the whole immigration issue, and I certainly have no problem with immigrants of any variety working with the Scouting program... but at the same time you need to be realistic about these things.

Without stirring the already overly emotional pot, might I just ask:

If all that's standing between the adult and a leadership position is some paperwork and bureaucracy (which I'll admit is a necessary evil in this case)... is that really a good enough reason to exclude him from serving as an ASM in your program?

Then again, BartHumphries really asked two separate questions:

1) Can he register as an ASM? The answer is "doubtful," and that's even before you start trying to redefine simple words like "reside." The absence of an SSN that is prerequisite for a background check will most likely hold up his application.

2) Can he come to all the meetings, and attend all the campouts? I don't see any reason why not. In fact, as we learned repeatedly over in the OA forum, anything that might discourage a parent from having access to his or her child on a Scouting activity is VERBOTEN!

SM asks the boy how to stop severe bleeding. One wag yells out "use the EDGE method, but make sure he doesn't bleed out before he is enabled!"

Funniest (Scouting-related) thing I've heard all year. Also shows how little real buy-in we see from the youth over these foolish acronyms we've used to replace actual training and leadership development in our program.

At least at one point, there was a T-2-1 requirement to participate in a school or community drug free awareness program, or something to that effect. So often the DARE program at school was used to fulfill this requirement.

There is no condition on advancement requiring that the work be done only for Scouting. I honestly see it as kind of silly if we make a Scout do the exact same requirement over and over - once for Scouts, once for school, once for church, etc etc. I don't see the "spirit" of the advancement program as being one that's going to hold up Scouts based on technicalities and made up limitations. What would they gain by repeating a requirement over and over? If they learned it once outside of Scouting, they're not going to "learn it better" by doing the same thing over again just for Scouts.

If the requirement reads "In the presence of your MB Counselor, do X" or "While on a Scouting activity, do X" then you are right to require that it be done in Scouting, or in the presence of the counselor. If the requirement just says "Do X" -- then it doesn't matter where, when or why they do it, as long as it's done. Why do we keep trying to make things complicated?

I don't think it's as much as a grey area as you might think. Many requirements are worded to be as specific as necessary - "Since joining your troop...", "Discuss with your counselor...", "On a troop camp out....". If the requirement doesn't specify where, when or why the requirement has to be completed, then it's just not a factor.

I can see both sides of the issue.

The troop that I was involved in as a youth put a lot of emphasis on fund raising. We'd do the Popcorn and Wreath sales during the winter, and then a handful of other fundraisers throughout the year - probably 5-6 per year. The nice part of that was that out-of-pocket expenses were pretty minimal for annual dues and events. Dues were whatever National was charging at the time ($12 or so), campouts were generally in the $10-$12 range. Summer camp cost whatever the camp charged - the troop didn't add on anything on top of that. Everything else was paid for by the troop - repair and maintenance of the troop's property, reimbursement for drivers' gas mileage, camp rental fees that weren't covered by the camp out fee, advancements, awards, etc. The advantage was that the overall program was very cost effective for the individual families. The downside is that a lot of time was spent fundraising.

A neighboring troop took a different approach - they charged a high annual fee (like $250 or so), and higher montly camping fees ($15-$25 range). But they did NO fundraising. (I think they may have allowed Scouts who wanted to do popcorn to do so, but the troop didn't invest much time in it, nor did they require it.) They swore by this method - they made a good point that they could focus more time on having a quality program, and doing "Scout" things, rather than fundraising. They also didn't have to deal with burdening a volunteer(s) with coordinating fundraisers. Apparently even the parents liked it - they'd rather just fork over some additional cash rather than supervise door-to-door sales, or another full day of Scouting fundraising.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. My question is, is there any value to fundraising beyond just raising funds? Maybe it somehow ties in with "A Scout Is Thrifty." But, from the unit's stand point, I don't think they need to care where the money came from - whether the parents are writing a check once a year, or whether the kids are going out fundraising once a month. And, if there's no benefit to the kids from having to do fundraising, I guess I don't see a problem with doing away with it.

FScouter - That's my guess too.

Interesting point though, as far as trust goes. People typically distrust things that they don't understand. And this thread (and some other threads going on simultaneously) have shown that there's a lot that people just don't understand about the BSA as a national organization - certain people don't understand the definition of a non-profit organization, don't understand the roles and responsibilities of volunteer vs. paid staff, don't understand how the BSA is funded, don't understand the name of the National Council, etc. Not surprisingly, the result is manifested as distrust of the National Council.

What I find a bit unsettling is that there certainly are various areas that the National Council does have responsibility over, that I feel could be improved upon. And I bet that many, if not most, unit- and district-level Scouters working "in the trenches" feel the same way. The problem is that red herrings like "predatory pricing" and professionals daring to drive vehicles get in the way of discussions that try to illuminate the ACTUAL ISSUES, and devise workable, reasonable solutions.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

I agree with Eagle92 -

You just basically described Venturing. I think Venturing is a fantastic program, but: 1) It has a slightly different goal and focus from Boy Scouts and 2) Venturing hasn't really taken off.

Now I don't think the reason that Venturing hasn't taken off is entirely due to an absence of a rigid advancement structure (the reasons for that could be a separate discussion), but I do think that the boys place more emphasis on advancement than we may give them credit for. I think many boys that age DO enjoy earning achievements and being recognized for them, and the Advancement method is a good way for that to happen.

I'd also point out that while troops have an obligation to provide an advancement program, the Scouts in the troop are not obligated to make use of it. I remember one of my friends when I was a Scout - he stayed with the troop till he aged out, but lost interest in advancement after he got to Star. Nice kid, active in the troop, solid outdoor and leadership skills, but just wasn't interested in advancement. But of course, that's just one example - most Scouts did find advancement worthwhile.

It seems like there's some troops who over-emphasize advancement to the detriment of other program areas (I believe we call them Eagle Mills :-) ). But at the other end of the spectrum, there are adults who seem suspicious of any Scout who's motivated by advancement, and seem to want to come up with any reason possible NOT to sign off on a rank requirement. Well, advancement is SUPPOSED to be a motivational force, and I wonder why we want to start to penalize Scouts who are motivated!

So I guess my expectation is that doing away with Advancement all together will have an overall negative effect on the program. I'd rather see some energy put into refining the Advancement program, prior to scrapping it all together.

Tampa - Fair point, but I don't believe the professional staff provide program leadership in most cases. Scout Executives and other supervisory staff may provide leadership to the other professionals in a business sense, but leadership of the Scouting program is almost always provided by volunteers. Look at the Key 3 of every district, council, and on up - you have 1 professional, and 2 volunteers. Not to mention the entirely volunteer district committee, council committee, etc. Professionals are being paid to provide support, logistics and resources for the volunteer-led program. If the most efficient use of the organization's time and money is for them to travel from point A to point B in a vehicle rather than on foot... I just don't see that as a huge conspiracy, I see that as a small group of people doing the job that they're being paid to do.

To my knowledge, the BSA is being run as a legal non-profit organization - why do you think that it is not?

I don't know FScouter - Maybe some facts might change the level of trust we place in various organizations and entities.

'Round here, "BSA National" (I'm assuming you mean the National Council), takes 0% of popcorn sales proceeds - the money is split roughly equally between the manufacturer, the council, and the unit. If $0 is "too much" compared to what you're unit is making, that get's back to the question of how you expect the BSA, as a business, to spend more money than it takes in.

At Jambo, the professionals are being paid to do a job. They are not participants or volunteers in the program - their job description involves the execution of certain duties and responsibilities. Why do you think that a condition of their job should be to live, eat and sleep in certain "conditions" for a week? How would that help them do their job better? You, as a volunteer, are not required to participate in the Jamboree, whereas the professionals are. Or should the camp ranger of your local council's camp property be forced to sleep in a tent each weekend that Scouts are camping on the property, rather than being "entitled" to sleep in his home?

Why is it wrong for the BSA, as a business, to expect to make some amount of profit from it's membership?

How about instead of knots we start handing out brightly colored feathers that can be attached to the Scouters' hats?

When I said "what if every boy turns into a 13 year old Eagle?" I got "whats wrong with that?"

Just playing devil's advocate, but... what is wrong with that?

If a Scout is working hard and mastering the skills in question, what basis do you have for not signing off on the requirements?

I obviously disagree with the idea that this four-month program was "suggested." And I think the Advancement method needs to be balanced with all of the other methods we use in Scouting - Advancement exists as part of a bigger overall program; the program DOESN'T exist just for the purpose of facilitating advancement.

Usually whenever someone comes up with some theory on the fastest way to get to a certain rank, I just dismiss it as an interesting mind game or puzzle - kind of like the "how many people can fit in a telephone booth" puzzle - it's an entertaining exercise, with no practical value :-)

Now, while apparently I was incorrect about the origins and rationale behind FCFY, I guess I don't see a huge problem with setting 12-16 months as a target for seeing most of your motivated Scouts get to 1st Class. True, I don't think we want a bunch of 13 year old Eagles... but we also don't want a bunch of 17 year and 364-day old Eagles either, right?

It certainly looks like there's no causative relationship between rank advancement rate and retention rate - but I think there can be some causative relationship between rate of advancement and quality of overall program.

If you have a troop where Scout's routinely hit First Class within 4-6 months, I'd worry that either a) The advancement method is being over-emphasized to the detriment of other methods; b) Scouts may not be held to a high enough level of proficiency of skills prior to being checked off; c) Scouts aren't being given opportunities to participate in fun and worthwhile activities unless they have some link to advancement. On the other hand, if even highly-motivated Scouts aren't able to hit 1st Class within 12-18 months, I'd worry that a) Advancement is being under-emphasized or b) The troop's program isn't making use of opportunities to enable advancement.

I think there's a subtle difference between a troop having a responsibility to advance each Scout to First Class within a year, versus having a responsibility to provide a program which will enable Scouts to earn ranks within a reasonable time frame. And setting the 12-16 month mark as a target for First Class to me honestly doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Eagle92 - Con-ed is also an excellent idea, and RT fills that role quite well, but that's not quite what I was talking about.

I could be wrong, but I believe you need to re-take your YPT training every 2 years. What I'm proposing is, rather than re-taking the entire course, just present a quick refresher, followed by any new policies or relevant information that have been developed since the last YPT training you took. Similar to how the AHA treats CPR, PALS and ACLS classes. The first time you take the class it's a two-day affair, but your subsequent refreshers are only a few hours long.

I think this might come across as being more respectful of people's time, and hopefully encourage better training participation. I really don't mind having relatively high training requirements for first-time leaders - but once you learn the stuff, and are routinely working with a unit, you shouldn't need to re-take classes on stuff you already know. Just do a quick review and present new information, then call it done.

Eagle92 -

When FCFY came out in 1989, the rationale behind it was that research showed that those scouts who achieved FC within 1 year of becoming a Boy Scout tended to remain in scouting

That's also what heard, but I thought that the rationale behind the poor retention was due to a weak program, and/or not providing positive re-enforcement and recognition of the boys' early accomplishments in the Boy Scout program. I have no official source for that, but I guess it makes sense as a plausible explanation.

But I think it's a theory that only works if you recognize the Scouts for actually achieving the rank - not just passing out patches based on some kind of arbitrary schedule.

SP -

I know it's popular to bash National for being too concerned with numbers... but there's also nothing wrong with trying to strengthen retention in Scouting by promoting a quality program. FCFY may not be the best way to do that, but I think it's at least a step in the right direction. Currently, my biggest gripe is that (at least in my council), the focus is getting 1st graders signed up for Cub Scouts, with no interest shown in keeping them in Cubs and Boy Scouts long term. So FCFY is obviously not a perfect solution, but it's at least an attempt to address an area where we seem to loose a lot of Scouts.

To take a step back- Say a parent with a new Scout in your troop, who has no experience with the Advancement program, were to ask you about how long it takes to earn the various ranks. He or she isn't trying to get a philosophical "well, it depends on how motivated... yada..."-type answer, he's just trying to get a general idea of whether it takes a weekend or takes a year to earn a rank. Would it be fair to say something like, "Well, if your son is active with the troop and takes it seriously, most of our Scouts get to First Class in about a year or so"?

Jay - It's not a problem for one Scout or another. What I was trying to get at is that there may be some amount of validity to using FCFY as a metric to evaluate a troop's advancement program, and maybe even their overall program.

So if a handful of Scouts take 2-3 years or so to reach 1st Class, I agree that it's not a problem. But if nearly every Scout can't reach First Class in less than 3 years, then I think that indicates a problem in the troop - maybe in that the troop isn't offering enough variety in their program, or that they're being too strict with their interpretation of the advancement requirements.

Likewise, if nearly every Scout, regardless of work ethic or motivation, earns First Class within 2-3 months, I think that also indicates a problem with that troop's advancement program.

I think FCFY originated from the idea that the T-2-1 requirements were developed in such a way that, on average, motivated Scouts in units with quality program could earn the rank within their first year, if they make that their goal. Sure, some will do it in more, and some will do it in less time - but one year was identified as an average.

Of course, that's something quite different from the passage of the newest Advancement Guide that Beavah quoted... but I think that there may still be some amount of validity to the FCFY theory, if not it's current practice.