Gone

Book available on Google Play here.

The council where they are going to summer camp is asking them for a tour plan. The scenario is a BS parent taking their scout kids to another council for summer camp. They want to register, they don't have a unit and the council is requiring a tour plan from their home unit. I think the options my council suggesting the other council should offer are: 1) go as part of a contingent, 2) go as a Lone Scout(s), 3) get hooked up with another troop and go under their plan. Agreed. This is personal travel to attend a scout camp out of council without the unit. Not sure why the other council would ask for a tour plan, UNLESS the other council does not have a lone scout or contingent program (as others have suggested). Maybe going with another troop is the only option.

At the point where we label people who don't agree with an obviously broken system are labelled as "haters" we stifle the open exchange of ideas, and further illustrate that we are closed off to new ideas. This is the argument of the extreme left and right and is polarizing this country. A reasonable person can look at BSA and see it is broken. They can take their experience and look at the mismatch between the strategic objectives of national/council/district, compare that against unit needs, and come to the conclusion that these bodies are not meeting their unit's needs. When this happens to one unit, yes, that voice might be seen as a negative person. When that happens to MANY units, those voices should not be extinguished or dismissed as "haters" just because you may disagree or you think your needs are being met. The fact that BSA is hemorrhaging membership and national is not doing anything effective to stop that bleed out leaves that open to valid criticism. Those who see that as hate have either drunk the BSA Kool-Aid or don't see the problem. The irony is that we who tilt at the sacred BSA windmills are labelled as haters, yet those you advocate a change in our membership policy (another sacred windmill) are seen as righting a wrong. Pot, meet kettle.

Good point, but in this situation (parent taking sons to an out of council camp without the unit) our council has responded that a tour plan is not appropriate since the unit is not doing anything.

That assumes they care what the rank and file feel. Recent events have indicated they don't (care). What you suggest makes 100% sense. Find out what your members need and support them. Novel concept that goes sadly for want in BSA.

Because for a tour plan to be valid there has to be an SM in charge. Also, that SM must have the basic minimum training (e.g., weather, CPR, first aid, IOLS, leader-specific). So they must be a "trained" leader AND have the minimum required training to hear up the activities covered in the tour plan. Filling out a tour plan puts this personal outing on the troop. For example, if I want to take may sons kayaking at the Summit, does the troop fill out a tour plan and accept responsibility for that outing? What about heading to PTC on our own? Does the troop fill it out then too? From what I have heard from my council this is considered a personal trip and needs to be covered by the sponsoring council under any accommodations they have for such scouts. As others have said, being part of a contingent or getting connected with another troop seem to be the more standard ways this is handled. I've marked the "solution" (cool feature) so that if any one else has this issue in future they can see the debate and the most likely method of resolving this issue.

We don't seem to agree on much but I can get behind this statement 100%. I never make a decision about someone because of how they look. The military taught me that. I assume all scouters are there to help and wait until deeds, words or actions prove otherwise. As I've noted, my experience shows a high correlation between the bling-set and egocentric behaviour. I think many can understand and support the multi-uniform approach. There's one you wear in the unit and one you wear for special occasions. Like BDUs and dress blues. You wear what you've been awarded, what you are allowed. My unit had a citation for something I was not even around for, but I got to wear it. I think that's 6% now based off of 2013 stats (820k in Boy Scouts and 50k Eagles). As @"Q" alluded to, it is the man in the uniform not what is ON the uniform. There's evidence of all types of scouters in our 900,000 ranks. There's folks who wear the bling and don't know a thing (that's patented). There's folks covered in gold that are helpful and old (that's for @@Stosh ). There are people without a thing who's knowledge is king. There are scouters without who can only shout. Whether one wear the bling or chooses to not, one thing is clear, they're part of the lot. [Apologies to my 12 grade English teacher and Dr. Seuss. ]

Thanks @@Stosh, @@RichardB, @@RememberSchiff, @@Eagle94-A1. I suspected as much. The provisional troop approach was my fist thought. I suspect the camp may not have that program. The fall back position would be to attach them to a local troop. Having all the right forms I figured that was a prerequisite. The tour plan seemed overkill and invalid since it's not a troop activity. Most appreciated.

We'd be the bottle washers, @@Stosh. Or "head" cleaners.

From the documentation and position description from BSA the role of CSE is akin to an executive director in an association or a CEO in a corporation. Those positions are hired to run day to day operations of the whole "ship". The board would be the "admiralty" and the president of the board would be the head of that body. Assistants to the CSE would be like the captain's XOs.

@@qwazse, spot on. Philmont used to be a special, rare once in a life time event. Now scouts are going two and three times. Now everyone is special.

Had an interesting topic come up. Have a parent taking their sons to a camp "back home" this summer. They are registering as lone scouts plus the parent. the parent has YPT but is not fully trained. The camp is asking for a tour permit. Since the parent is not fully trained they are not technically valid to be the lead on the tour permit. Any one ever encounter something like this? I was surprised the camp wants a tour permit for essentially "lone scouts". Any suggestions on how to handle?

The point of this whole thread is whether BSA has the right guy or not, so I'll agree that this premise is speculation. However, one can look at his background and experience, compare that with the needs of scouting and the problems it faces, and arrive at a conclusion that is more than speculation, but rather an informed decision. You don't hire a head chef for your ship when you need a captain. That's what BSA has done. He might be a great cook, but he's not qualified to be captain.

But no knots. One medal which is only for ceremony. Still a simple, clean look. Does not belay his experience, but the man does that not the bling.

Next time you wake up to reply try reading my points and responding to the facts. Anything else is you speculating.

That uniform look is clean. Simple.

@@TAHAWK I think many agree. Sadly I don think many leaders -- unit, district or council -- actually want to walk that walk. That would mean giving up power and the spotlight. I suspect most who frequent this board would gladly give up power, but many others in similar positions wouldn't. In the end we can only affect change in our unit.

It's not speculation that membership is dropping. It's not speculation that BSA strategic plans over the last 15 years have failed miserably at stemming the decline in membership, let alone increasing it. BSA is mismanaging their organization. It is tens times more costly to recruit a new customer/member than it is to keep an existing one. Rather than focus on why people are in scouting in the first place, BSA has focused the membership equivalent of "get rich quick" schemes to try to boost membership. The latest is directed at recruiting people of color. I attended my council's RT to roll out this program. Rather than give concrete ideas on HOW to do it, the gist of the two hour session was, "Identify people of color and ask them to join". Really? Would have never thought of that on my own. A businessman would know how to create growth in a market. Non-profit focused executives tend to focus on old school membership strategies that don't work. Regardless of the issues facing scouting the key is membership retention, especially at the Boy Scout level. Building strong units at the CS level -- and not expansion for the sake of growth -- is the key to CS membership. I suspect training and, as @@desertrat77 said, making it easier on leaders to execute a successful program are the other factors that would make CS membership growth more likely. We can wait for the other shoe to drop or we can tell BSA how we feel and NOT make this about a single issue hoping that will solve the problems. It won't.

@@andysmom, over 100 years at the same CO?!?!?!? Wow!

@@Stosh, we just had our SM meeting last night and this was the exact topic. Our SM said his biggest challenges were: - Getting parents to step up and staff troop events and roles. - Getting adults to step up and be ASMs and help coach the boys properly (read: advise and walk away, let the boys lead). - Getting the right support from district/council for membership growth (e.g., the demographics councils are given from national, real programs that work for growing membership). - Working with the PLC to develop an engaging program that would have the boys dying to be at the meeting rather than be home on the game console. There were others but those were the most common.

I complied the list from the annual reports. Seems some years they reported data, other years they didn't. Some years they would quote a given number and then the following year the previous year's number would be revised downward. The format for the annual reports was a bit like Easter Egg hunting (I wonder if I can use that analogy without offending anyone ), you had to really, really look for data when some years there were great comparison charts all over the place. No surprise that BSA did not do things in a standard and uniform fashion, huh?

BSA Membership Stats 1997-2014 Source: http://www.scouting.org/About/AnnualReports/PreviousYears.aspx Note: BSA themselves noted that the policy change of 2013 was an operational risk. The membership drop from 2013 to 2014 was 6%...the largest in a long, long time. Personally I'd like to see BSA make the full change and allow gay scouters, if for nothing more that when the alleged influx of liberal families doesn't happen the proponents can find something else to blame the lack of membership growth on.

@@desertrat77 hits the nail on the head. BSA has a track record of making decisions that have not always had a positive impact on the scouting program. They tend to go of fishing expeditions rather than executing a well thought out strategic and tactical plan. They run BSA very much like a non-profit organization...something that anyone with private/corporate management experience AND non-profit experience knows is not a good thing. According to what was posted, this position is akin to the CEO role. This is WAY more than simply to "carry out the decisions of the executive board". You're confused with the Chairman of the Board position. The CEO is responsible for the overall health and well-being of the company -- all facets of the company, not merely executing what the board decides; that's only one part of his job. To use the non-profit model, this role is more like the executive director. If you want corporate growth across programs, an outsider would help a great deal with that. A good CEO would put in place people who know their various areas (i.e., BSA program detail) so that they (the CEO) would not need to be fluent in that detail, but rather would have the right people in place to address and implement his vision. You can bet that this guy was hired for a reason. He must be on board with whatever the strategic vision of the board is, otherwise he would not have gotten the role. What that means for the future of BSA I suspect we will find out soon enough. The pres has little power. They manage the board. The real power is the CEO role. If the CEO decides to switch to blue uniforms and the president doesn't, the pres can encourage the board to support his view but if he does not have the votes the organization goes with the CEO's course.

What if the other parts of the country don't want to get on board?

@@RememberSchiff, thanks for the detail on this guy. So the original post was... I'll push the topic with this: Does BSA need a guy who is essentially a home-grown BSA person, spent his life in BSA and has a degree in non-profit management? Or does BSA need someone from the outside with fresh ideas and a proven track record of successful business acumen BUT is deeply knowledgeable about BSA processes, procedures and policies? The former will know more but comes with all the assumed baggage. That latter will not have the internal baggage but may not have the depth of knowledge of the former. Which does BSA need right now?