Lisabob

OK here's my "Blue Sky" contribution: What if we routinely realigned the councils, or at least the districts, every 10 years or so on the basis of census figures? Living as I do in an area that was until recently quite rural and now constitutes one of the fastest growing counties in the state, I see an antiquated council/district system that fails to provide structure and support for fast-growing areas, and over-supports areas that are no longer the main population centers within the council/districts. (In fact, we did go through a re-districting to address this a couple years ago, and you'd have thought someone was being murdered, listening to the hue and cry from some quarters. But I think it'll be a good long time before people are willing to go through that again, no matter what's actually happening with demographics on the ground.) The area I'm in borders three other councils - until recently we were so sparsely populated as to be uninteresting to them, but that's no longer the case. Times change, maybe council boundaries should too. And here's my analysis of what I'm seeing unfold re: more flexible council and district boundaries (spoiler alert, I've been critical of an idea here): This is an interesting idea and as some have mentioned, it happens in practicality at the edges of some councils, particularly rural areas. It is happening now in our council, in our district. One rural outpost of our council is actually a lot closer to the offices of the neighboring council than to our own. Up until a couple of years ago when redistricting hit us, this town was more or less over-looked too, and was worlds away from the "powers that were" in the district (let alone, in the council as a whole). I'd like to think that redistricting has meant an improvement in district and council services to units in that town, but bad impressions and experiences take a long time to overcome. So, when the neighboring council started sniffing out potential COs in this town, they've had some luck. Not in getting "our" units to recharter with the other council, but rather in starting up new units that were chartered by the other council, and that compete with existing units for boys. Since it is a small town, there really are not enough total available youth to support the existence of so many competing units and some will likely fold as a result. Is this a good thing? Maybe, if the units that fold are the ones that run a weaker program and aren't really delivering the promise of scouting anyway. On the other hand, what I do worry about is that all units will remain anemic as they struggle for members, and that most of them might fold due to an inability to attain critical mass. That wouldn't be good, leaving few choices for scouts and their families. Not to mention the (existing and very real) bad feelings about "cannibalization" and "raiding" that have been created by this endeavor.

Nothing is ever simple, is it. In a way I'm glad to hear that this is the decision they've reached. It means that the CO needs to pay better attention to the troop, it means the parents and the boys understand that THEY are "the troop" and need to take better care of it if they want to see it survive, and it may mean that you have neatly avoided some headaches in your own troop. (And from a district membership perspective, it means that the district doesn't lose a unit, which is a big bad thing.) So now the question is, how open is your door? Knowing that this troop is struggling and recognizing that seeing it be revitalized is better than watching it die, what support can you offer them? For example, while their new crop of leaders is getting trained and figuring out what they are doing, would you consider doing a joint camp out or two? What about offering to sit down with the new leaders (youth and adult) and helping them understand your vision of what "boy led" means, doesn't mean, and how you've managed to turn around some things in your troop? How about helping the district find a really good person to serve as their Unit Commissioner (or, if they have one, an unofficial mentor)? How about offering to give the new SM a ride to the next Round Table? Just some thoughts and based on your previous posts I bet you were already thinking along these lines anyway. My hat's off to you for your efforts.

I have to agree that moderators should be very careful about deleting posts, and that this should really be a last resort. It is very hard to have a "community" when most of the community is unaware that such editing or censorship is occurring, or when people know that such things sometimes happen but have no idea when, where, or how often. So in that sense it would be more helpful for the moderators to make it clear when they've removed the content of a post. Also, while in general I think the moderators have done a pretty good job on this forum and while I don't envy any of you the "power and glory" that goes with the title, I'd also ask you to give us readers a little more credit. If someone posts something that makes them appear idiotic because they're stooping to unwarranted attacks, I'm pretty confident that I can make my own judgments about both the person writing that kind of garbage, and the degree to which I would put any stock in what they've asserted (either in that message, or in any future messages). As long as we're not getting into really foul language or something like that, I think it should stand. Now if the target of such posts complains, then maybe that's another matter. But as I understand it, that's not the case here (is it?).

As I mentioned in the venturing forum, our district is looking to start several new crews this year. At least two will probably be along the lines of what Oak Tree is describing, although one of those is likely to be a joint effort between a couple of troops so as to avoid being seen as "territorial." (None the less, the CO and Crew # will be the same as one of the troops in town.) For the most part I'd agree with Beavah's list of pros and cons, except for the bit about longevity. I've been involved on and off with district membership for a few years now and what I've noticed is that these sorts of crews last only as long as the founding group of kids/parents are still involved. Once those original youth go off to school and/or age out, the crew folds because they are not really very good at recruiting others. This is as true on the adult advisor side as the youth member side. According to our DE, this is a problem with crews in general though, regardless of their provenance, and the solution seems to be to expect to start up new crews every few years. (Not sure I'm thrilled by that prospect but then, maybe the life cycle of a crew doesn't need to be the same as with troops and packs)

You could indeed do as Bob White suggested at the end of his previous post and (if done lightly and with a sense of humor) that might even go over well. But I have to add...you are talking about FIRST GRADERS here! When's the last time you saw an entire group of 1st graders with shoes tied, shirts tucked in, noses wiped, hair neatly combed and (yes) neckers worn correctly, who stayed that way for more than about 10 minutes at a time? While I don't wish to neglect uniforming, there are times when one has to choose one's battles with a bit of care.

Nah It's Me, that's not what I meant. But when you have guys joining the troop in Feb/March and going to camp in June/July for the first time (often, for the first time away from mom and dad for more than a day or so, ever in their lives) and they have a lousy time then...yeah, it isn't conducive to keeping them in scouting. A couple of years ago the troop went to a poorly run camp with a badly organized/staffed 1st year program and a couple of our first year scouts did quit right after that.

Beavah, Because here in the real world, a week is a long time at a camp where the program is poorly run or unorganized. It leaves us with more headaches (both during and after the week at camp) than we appreciate. If it can be dealt with in a pro-active manner then the headaches can be reduced. Oh and also, because young scouts (and we have a lot of those in the troop these days) who have a lousy time at camp are less likely to want to go again, or maybe even less likely to stay in scouts.

Oak, no we do not have a listing of what they offered last year (which would allay some concern, since I agree that it is unlikely to be wildly different from year to year). Honestly I think the reason the boys picked this camp was that they had a slick promo video online, as opposed to some other camps the boys were considering that had less of a marketing edge. Of course that doesn't translate into a great program either way so we'll see. I guess worrying is rather futile - but I'm a detail person - so I was considering calling the council office for this camp and asking them for last year's program listing, at least. And hotdesk, I agree that it really would be lovely if it weren't all about merit badges. On the other hand, that's the way most BSA camps operate and the boys do want to know what's going to be available to do at camp.

The summer camp our guys have picked out for this year doesn't release its list of merit badge offerings or other special programs until late in April. This is the first time I've come across a camp that waits so long and it is making me nervous, not knowing what sorts of things they typically have available for the boys and also, not being able to gauge whether waiting so late means they're not real well organized. (On the other hand, they could be waiting until staffing is figured out so they know for sure they can cover MB sessions with qualified people.) Additionally the boys are required to turn in camp payments before they'll know what the camp has available for program - which seems a little weird to me too. Is this typical at many camps? Just curious to know whether I ought to be concerned or not, what do you think?

And by the way, I don't know too many women involved in scouting who think the current BSA shirt/necker is a smart look either.

I'll let others give you more detailed advice about what to get/avoid, but as a general suggestion - Before you spend a bunch of money on a pack and gear, it might be a good idea for you and your son to go to a good outdoor store and ask them the following questions: 1) do they rent gear (esp. a good idea if your son is not sure yet about how much backpacking he'll want to do, or of what type of equipment he prefers) and 2) do they offer any BSA member discounts and 3) can they help you with fitting the gear to your son's body. If you have stores nearby where the staff is actually knowledgeable, they can and usually will help you out considerably, which can save you a lot of money too. After all, this stuff can get pricey. Also, your son's troop leaders ought to be able to help him figure out what he needs, how to pack it, and might also be in a position to lend him equipment too.

Bob White, I have a suggestion. Rather than picking apart every other word that is posted, how about we try for a bit more give and take here. Because to be honest, I don't have much interest in engaging in what appears to be your argumentative style of "discussion." And for the record, while I never meant to suggest that you said anything in particular to the OP, if you mis-took my meaning then I do apologize.

Brent writes: "My question would be, where is your District Membership Vice-Chair and DE? Our goal is to have an affiliated troop for each pack. I'm surprised your District leadership isn't working towards a similar goal." Well I can tell you (because I'm the membership chair) that this is definitely NOT the goal in our district or council. In fact we've been pushing to get packs and troops not to think this way, because in our experience it leads to troops that take their relationship with packs for granted, and WDLs who suppose (and tell their den's parents) that their boys can only go to a certain troop. Then when the fit isn't right for some boys, they drop out of scouting all together. Instead of having a one-to-one relationship between packs/troops as our goal, it is instead our goal to help every individual boy find the troop that is right for him. To that end, we are working on publishing a calendar of events that troops are inviting webelos to attend. We are working on providing more opportunities for webelos leaders and troop leaders to interact and get to know each other. We're doing more Webelos to Scout transition training and promotion. And other things too - but the focus you describe, Brent, is not one that would be desirable to most people in my district. Just another perspective for ya.

SSScout, I believe that some Scoutreach folks do get paid to do pretty much what you described, typically in inner city environments where there is a need for scouting, but not the family or community resources to provide appropriate volunteer leaders. Scoutmomma - Ouch! Here's hoping you heal quickly and in the meantime, take it easy!

ah, nothing like tolerance of others' religious beliefs.

Nope I don't disagree with that statement Bob. In fact if you go back and re-read the first response I posted on this thread I think you'll find that I already said that, and quite clearly too. There is, however, a distinction between "official policy" and how people often respond in reality. For example, telling the original poster that there is no official restriction handed out by BSA national is one thing - explaining why many troops still prefer to have people other than parents sign off on requirements is another, and might be useful for her to understand too. A narrow discussion of policy without discussion of the nuances of application in reality is really neither useful nor interesting to most people. Sorry if you can't grasp that.

Bob White made a good point in the thread on troop size when he said that troops who get inundated with unexpected cross-overs at the last minute have a communication issue. I'd have to agree to at least some extent, but I think it is much easier to identify than to solve this problem in a lot of cases. I see this as a "problem" for two reasons. First, in our area there are few "feeder" relationships between troops and packs and those that do exist mostly only last for a few years at a time before shifting around. So communication can be an issue because there is no solid sense of expectation that scouts from pack 111 will simply join troop 111. This is actually a good thing in my view because it means that boys can choose troops based on which troop is the best fit for each boy/family, rather than because that's where all the boys from the pack are going. But it does make for more difficult communications between troop and pack leaders. (I should add: we have two or three times as many packs as troops in most towns in our district) The second problem is actually tougher, and that is that the troop and the webelos scouts have different needs which propel them along different time tables. The troop wants to know how many new scouts to expect as early as possible so that they can prepare for them. The webelos scouts (and parents and leaders) want to be sure they have chosen carefully and well, which sometimes means taking a long time to decide. And also, it isn't uncommon for webelos II scouts/parents to announce that they will be dropping out of scouting after blue & gold, only to have a last-minute change of heart when the boy realizes that all his friends are going on to exciting boy scout adventures without him. Those last-minute decisions can sometimes make a big change in the number of new scouts a troop ends up with. Troop leaders need to be sensitive to the sometimes conflicting interests of the webelos scouts/parents/leaders and (from experience) if troops are too pushy about nailing down the exact number of cross-overs early on, pack leaders and webelos parents get annoyed. But then too, troop leaders have good reasons for wanting to know what they should expect. So what are your thoughts on how to improve the communications here? What have you done/tried that works, what have you tried that didn't work so well?

I'm involved with our district membership folks so I've gotten a pretty good look at how different troops are doing with # of active scouts. Last year we had one troop get 24 new crossover scouts. This year it looks like that same troop will probably get another 20 or so, and another troop not too far away will get between 15-20 new scouts. In both cases this raises questions of troop size and whether the town they are both in can support a whole new troop, and especially whether we have sufficient committed adults to start up a new troop. But under no circumstance (except maybe for our very small LDS units that don't recruit outside their church) can I imagine that our DE would be happy if he heard that good strong troops were TURNING AWAY potential new scouts. To some degree Bob White is correct that having a mass of new cross-overs on short notice is a communications issue. But, you tell me, what would you do in this case? There are 10-12 packs in our area and this year webelos scouts from no less than 8 of them visited our troop. Some have made their intentions clear but in at least two cases, Blue&Gold is fast approaching and while we know that we are getting 1-2 crossover scouts from pack xxx, we also know they have 6-8 more scouts who are still hemming and hawing about where to go. If those scouts decide at the last minute that they want to join our troop, are we supposed to tell them "nope, sorry, don't want you but we'll still take your friends?" And if even half of the fence-sitters in each of those webelos dens do end up joining us, it would about double the number of new scouts who cross into our troop. Fact is, if they say late in the game that they want to join our troop (or any other) and get told "no, sorry we're full" then they will in all likelihood quit scouting instead of seeking alternatives. That would be a shame.

Well I guess I just find that to be the height of arrogance there Bob. You appear to be questioning and judging people's parenting styles, mine included. That ticks me off and I'm sorely tempted to tell you to go stick your head in a lake. If you don't see the value in boys learning to work with other adults then fine. I do. But as you know nothing about me or my child in "real life" I'll thank you to keep your judgment of my relationship with my son as a parent to yourself.

Maybe as part of that parent meeting you are planning to have you should consider letting all of these potential new parents know that every one of them is expected to contribute actively (ie, not just write a check) in some manner. You may not want or need all of them on all your camp outs but travel to and from campsites just got more challenging and they'll be expected to help with the driving. Record keeping just became a bigger job and you'll need more help with that. Merit Badge counseling may be more frequent now and nearly everybody has a talent or passion they could share with the boys as MBCs. One of our former SMs uses this line when he is talking to webelos parents about the expectations the troop has of adults: "I can do all sorts of things for your boys (lists a few things here) but I need you to help do those things for my son too." Most of them seem to get that and sign up to do something or other. And then of course you'll want to think about getting all these new adults to training so that they have at least a basis upon which you can continue to build a shared vision.

Depends. Would anything else change, or would this be a simple public statement, still totally up to the units to either do something with, or ignore (ie, pretty much the way this is up to most units now)? Would non-religious groups still be COs? Would leaders have to meet some sort of faith test other than the DRP? For that matter, would the DRP be made more prominent so new leaders were more clearly aware of it? Would there be more explicitly religious material in rank advancements? Would it be non-denominational or not? And so on. My take is that if the BSA simply said "We're a non-denominational religious organization" and didn't change the program or the way leaders and COs are selected and registered, that we would see a brief ripple of discussion and that would be that. On paper the BSA is a religious organization already.

Hello and welcome to the forum. You might find you get more on-target responses if you try posting this in the "cub scouts" section. But in general, my answer to your question would be "no." Encourage the boys to stretch and do more, rather than to view the requirements as simply something to be checked off and filled in, and they'll get more from the program. If it is parents pushing you (and if you are the Den Leader), remind the parents that the program is first and foremost about doing things, not getting things (arrow points). Hope this helps!

Bob I think you mis-understand the issue. The fact is that there are lots of ways to be involved in a shared activity like scouting, regardless of whether a parent signs off on requirements or serves as a MBC for their own child. I know this is true for me. In fact, when my son earned his Citizen in the Nation badge (which I'm well qualified to serve as counselor for), we probably ended up talking about the material together *more* than we might have if I'd served as his counselor straight-up, because he found the MBC's views and gov't-related experiences to be a) different from the political views he typically hears at home and consequently, b) really interesting to dissect and consider. THere is no need to say that parents are missing out on a connection with their child by asking other adults to work with their child. And there are many things to be gained by helping a child establish a good working relationship with other adults too. Again drawing on my son's experiences with two of the best of his MB counselors, I know that he was motivated to go on to other merit badges that he otherwise might not have tried, simply because these people were also counselors for those badges. Had he done the initial badges with me, he'd have been deprived of that relationship and the new fields of inquiry that resulted from it. I don't find that sad, I find that exciting on his behalf.

I'm with Bob White on this one. There's no call for rudeness but let's not dance around things either. And when the original poster starts off by talking about reforming the BSA and then acknowledges that what they are doing is not the way the BSA lays things out, then I think it is entirely fair to engage in discussion of what the boundaries of BSA scouting are, where those boundaries are located, why they are placed where they are, and what the consequences of choosing to ignore or over-step those boundaries might be.

Congrats to you gwd! I'm glad to hear your scouts are getting noticed for the quality of program that the troop provides. Now that it looks like you'll be getting an infusion of several new scouts all at once, it might be a good idea to talk with your current scout leadership (and adults too) about how to make that integration as painless as possible. In particular if you are getting established boy scouts who are used to doing scouting in some other way, you'll need to do some re-education of the scouts (and their parents!). A lot of larger troops do a formal orientation event - I don't know if you need this or not, but it might be worth considering. We do one and it is really more about the parents than the scouts (paperwork, uniforming, troop culture stuff, how our scout accounts work, etc.). And of course, since you're getting transfers, be prepared to hear a litany of complaints about how awful their "old" troop was! Depending on circumstances surrounding their transfer it might be good to establish up front that you know and respect their former troop leaders and you don't entertain trash talk.