NJCubScouter

Far be it from me to sort-of agree with Stosh on something, but it would only be "adult micro-management" if we knew that the boys, as a group, wanted their troops to be coed and the adults were saying no. I don't know if that's what the boys want. I've never asked any about it.

The way I have seen it is usually as Stosh describes it, but not always. For whatever reasons there have been a few boys who already have the Eagle patch on their uniform at the time of the ECOH. The young man was an Eagle Scout as soon as their EBOR was completed, although you need that certificate from National before it's official. The ECOH is really a non-event as far as the actual advancement is concerned. It recognizes what has already taken place. So to answer Jeff521's question, our standard (though not "uniform" procedure is the latter: Eagle medal on the flap over the Life patch. I have never heard of anyone removing the Life patch and just leaving a blank pocket for the ceremony.

And it once seemed as if they might do just that. The shirt I have hanging in my closet that I last wore when I was an 18-year-old ASM does not say "Boy Scouts of America" over the pocket. It says "Scouts BSA." I don't know how long they sold the shirts with that strip on it, but I know they sold them. I remember some of us sitting around speculating about what it meant, and one of the possibilities was a merger with the Girl Scouts. This was right around 40 years ago.

This is not about other things that the BSA may do that are, arguably, just as bad or worse than this. Even if there are other things that are just as bad or worse, that does not make this a good idea. And certainly this is not the first thread that has ever appeared in this forum criticizing some of things that BSA National and/or councils do to bring in funds.

But as far as I can recall, Green Bar Bill did not promote specific products or services in the text of his column. That is what this is about. In fact if you read the column it appears that while Bryan wrote the introduction and the parenthetical under number 10 (about the chocolates sent by See's to the Scouting staff, which my father would have called "graft"), the rest of it may have been written by the candy company: The intro says the 10 tips were "served up by See’s Candies." I don't know if I would call it "untrustworthy", but I do agree with T2Eagle that there are better ways to do this. Just speaking for myself, I am not "indignant" over this. The link was posted, I read the column, and commented on it. I notice, by the way, that some of the commenters on the blog post also have an issue with the "sponsored posts." As for Trail's End (is that still the company? I bought some (overpriced) popcornfrom a couple of earnest-looking Cub Scouts a few weeks ago and I think another company's name was on the box), I think that is over-pushed as well. I have never liked the fact that the council gives preference (like permission to wear the uniform) only to the fundraisers where they get a big cut of the profits. It just seems kind of sleazy.

I think a paid advertisement and a paid-for blog post, even if it is clearly labeled as such, are two different things. Bryan regularly blogs about items of interest to Scouters. Sometimes he is blogging about things that are somewhat controversial, such as interpretations of certain regulations, or changes to rules, etc. Some of what he writes contain his opinions (I believe), and they certainly contain the opinions of the Scouters or folks from National who he chooses to quote - and at the same time, he chooses not to quote other people who might have different opinions. What I'm saying here is, Bryan is a guy who presents information and opinions, and he (and his employer, the BSA) want all of us to believe that information and opinions are correct, and follow them. Now he comes along and sells (proceeds to his employer of course) his column to a sponsor, and puts in THEIR information, which in this case is why it's so great to eat (and sell) their chocolate. I kind of think this hurts his credibility for everything else, if you can buy his opinion. And what are we supposed to think (and it may have already happened, I don't remember) one day when Bryan's Blog is about the new nutritional guidelines being incorporated into the advancement requirements, and/or the BSA's participation in a national campaign to combat the problem of obesity among teenagers. (I just made up that last part, but it could happen, or it might already have happened.) How does that square with his paid shilling for the candy company?

This is probably getting off on a tangent from what this thread is really about, but what else is new. I knew that youth applications could come in from BeAScout, and I have no problem with that. (Although I don't think our troop has that "switched on" either.) But if an adult submits an application online, and he/she doesn't have a son in the unit and nobody in the troop has ever met him or her and has no idea who he/she is... how CAN you accept it without at least meeting the person and finding out why they want to be a leader in your unit? And in that case I would also call the references. While this situation has never happened in any unit I have been involved in - almost every new leader has a son in the unit and in the rare cases where they don't, they are a friend of an existing leader - I can see where someone coming in through BeAScout may be more likely to be an unknown.

Seattle Pioneer, how much in advance do you notify the people with delinquent paperwork or dues that if they don't fork it over by a certain date, they will not be on the charter?

My understanding from the people on our committee who have handled rechartering (during the YPT-mandatory era) is that our council actually makes very clear in the rechartering paperwork which individuals will be dropped from the charter if they do not renew their YPT before the recharter date. It is then up to the person with the charter paperwork to notify the individuals in question. However, as others have mentioned, there seems to be some separate notification system in place, at least in some councils, that tells people directly when their YPT has a certain amount of time left before expiration. This seems to be separate from the rechartering process. I know I received a letter by email over the summer telling me I had 90 days left before my YPT expired. I do not remember whether it came from national or council.

Well, as far as I can see, the "animosity" is not toward the "movement" nor is toward the "BSA", if you define "BSA" as the total sum of all of us, volunteers, professionals and youth members. When people criticize "National" or "National BSA" the criticism is really directed toward some of the rules, policies and actions coming out of the national headquarters. And I suppose, by extension, some of it is directed to the people making those decisions. I think a lot of people feel that the people in charge at Irving TX have lost their connection with Scouting as it is actually practiced on the local level, and some of the decisions reflect that. My particular criticism is that National seems unable to effectively communicate with us out here in the field. Others focus on other issues. I also think that the high salaries of the top people at National leave a bad taste in the mouths of many local Scouters. And you, being a professional Scouter at the council level, are kind of stuck in the middle of all this. It is not an enviable position. But please don't equate the criticism of "National" that you see here with animosity toward the "movement." They are not the same thing.

Yes, we have that one too. In the one Venture crew that I am familiar with (but not directly connected with), I believe there have been two female members, ever, and they were both daughters of the Advisor, not to mention three of their brothers were also crew members at various times, so that may at least partly explain why I never heard any stories of any relationships or other activity of that sort within the crew. The phrase "not on OUR watch" comes to mind.

qwasze, I will admit that I am not very familiar with the travelling practices of church youth groups or any other religious youth groups for that matter. My son did go on some multi-overnight robotics trips while in high school, and the number of chaperones did seem roughly equivalent to what a Scouting group might have, i.e. one adult for each 10 or so kids. Probably more importantly, I do not think this is issue is a very significant element in the BSA's "growth" problem.

I wasn't talking about random kids on a street corner. I was talking about a trip Stosh said was taken to New Orleans by a group of 112 youth with only 3 adults.

And they shouldn't allow it. I wouldn't call it courage, I would call it foolishness and irresponsibility.

Well Stosh, as I've said before, if you choose to believe the sky is falling, go right ahead.

And I'll bet you a dollar (my standard maximum rhetorical bet) that if I look around the Internet long enough, I can find forums or Facebook pages or something where volunteers in one or both of those organizations are complaining (probably anonymously) about their "national". But who is directly providing the program? Other than publications meant to be read by the youth themselves (mainly the Handbook, the requirements book and merit badge pamphlets), National provides the program to us and we deliver it to the youth. And as any reader of this forum can attest, we do it in all different ways, some better than others, and some a matter of opinion and personal preference. Sure National has a responsibility, but their responsibility is defined by their involvement, and our responsibility is defined by ours. And let's not exaggerate. You sayNational promises adventure and fun and does "nothing to service the promise". Nothing at all? Really? There's no Philmont, Seabase, hundreds of council camps, other programs? There's no value in the advancement program? There's no value in the training materials? It used to be in this forum that there were a couple of people who went around trying to stamp out any dissent against anything National was doing. Now it seems like people are ridiculed for suggesting that there is any value at all coming out of National. As usual, I am in the middle. National gives us something... well actually, they sell it to us, not give it to us, and it could be better, but it's not nothing. And you didn't answer my question.

I will, perhaps somewhat uncharacteristically, defend National a bit on this. The fact is that the organization is not designed for them to directly deliver the program or provide direct local support for the program. We do that, you and me, and all the other members of this forum and all the other volunteers who are Scoutmasters, Cubmasters, Committee Members etc. etc. etc., and in supporting roles the volunteers at district and council levels. National is there, or should be there, to provide support, program materials, some nationwide standards for things (such as advancement), etc. I think there is a general agreement that National could and should do better at communicating with the "field." And some of the things they do seem counterproductive, and I won't even mention any of them because they have already been discussed to death in this forum. I think we can all agree that whatever National does do, it should do those things correctly and not get in the way of the program. Sometimes people in this forum (and sometimes including me) seem to want National to do less in certain areas. Now, Stosh, you seem to want National to do things they aren't doing. What would those be?

The BSA doesn't have to be good at it. They just have to hire a marketing/advertising agency that is good at it, and there are a lot of those around. In fact I would be surprised if the BSA is not already paying one or more marketing/advertising agencies, but I don't know what the tangible results are of what they are doing. So much of the BSA's public relations over the past 15 years or so has been devoted to damage control, I think they need to shift focus to "spreading the word." I think the BSA has the benefit of having a lot of volunteers out here who "spread the word" as much as we can (including me), but I think it would also help to have some sort of centralized, organized effort backing us up.

Yes, I think we all get an A+ in beating this one to death.

I think part of the weakness of Mr. Surbaugh's approach is that while it talks about targeting specific potential sources of members, and about attracting people to "non-traditional programs", i.e. Exploring and STEM Scouts, I see nothing here about marketing and promotion of the "traditional programs" (Cubs, Boy Scouts and Venturing) to the GENERAL audience. You would almost think that BSA is happy with the numbers of middle-class-and-higher "white" people who join and remain in Scouting, and the only shortfall is in the numbers of minority and economically disadvantaged who join. But I am pretty sure that is NOT the case - I think we would all agree that the numbers of kids who join Scouting should be higher in ALL demographic groups. But where in this plan is the general promotion and "marketing" (a term I hate to use, but you can't avoid it these days) of Scouting to "everybody"? I remember when I was a kid seeing ads for the BSA on tv. ("Follow the rugged road!") Some mentions have been made on this forum about National having ads available for councils to get placed on tv (not sure whether they would be paid ads or public service announcements) but that these are usually on at 3:30 a.m. on the gardening channel or wherever. To me, that is not an advertising campaign. That is just lip service to a promotional campaign. I am not necessarily saying the BSA needs to have ads on the Super Bowl, but they should be running some ads where and when people will actually see them, as they used to years ago. To sum this all up in one sentence, I doubt I have ever seen an organization's or business's "growth plan" that did not include some kind of general marketing or advertising campaign, but there seems to be none here.

To be fair, I think you only had to read the second post (qwasze's) to get to the idea of going outside. I think Scouting's values are doing just fine. They're right there in the Scout Oath and Law, where they've always been. They have not changed.

("It" being Exploring.) Well, you probably wouldn't see it at RT's or council events, it isn't really that kind of program. If you read this forum long enough, or read back into the archives, you will see it discussed here and there. In fact, this forum (and pages linked-to from posts) is probably where I have seen it mentioned the most. In my local area I have seen or heard of only two, maybe three Exploring units. One was an Aviation Explorer post at a small local airport, which I heard about because they sent out flyers (oh man, I crack myself up sometimes, get it, flyers?) to all the troops in the area about an Aviation MB program they were running, which my son and a few other Scouts from our troop attended. The other is the Law Explorer post I mentioned earlier. I also think I recall hearing about a Police Explorers post around here years ago, but I am a little hazy on that. My suspicion is that Police Explorers are one of the most common kinds of posts around the country.

That's right. I mean, glad to know you, Mike, but we're not on a first-name basis just yet. (Especially that particular name, I used to joke that in our troop, if you called "Mike" seven different people turned around, and at various times that was not an exaggeration. I think we "only" have three or four now.)

Part of my issue with ScoutReach (which is mentioned in the blog post) is that after all the words I have read about it, I am still not clear on exactly what measures are used to attract more units and more members in the "underserved communities." Most of it (including the page linked from the blog post) seems to focus on the goals of ScoutReach and how Scouting can benefit these communities, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. My question is, what are they actually doing? They are talking about "enhanced ScoutReach" but I don't see much on that page that seems "enhanced." Part of it is promotion and marketing, part of it is getting kids into one program and trying to lure them from that into Scouting (see Scouting, Soccer and, above), and part of it is providing grants for fees and expenses when regular fundraising is insufficient. It's all nice but it hardly seems new or innovative or enhanced. It's probably just nibbling on the edges of the problem. My question is, do any of these ScoutReach programs finance paid Scouters to do what volunteers do in areas where volunteers are more plentiful? In other words, paid Cubmasters and Scoutmasters? It seems to me I have read about that somewhere but I don't know if it actually exists. I realize that would be a controversial idea and would involve big bucks, but quite frankly if the goal is to get big numbers to join Scouting in areas where almost all the parents are wondering where their next meal is coming from and dealing with all the issues of a troubled urban (or remote rural) area, I think that's what it would take.

This IS part of the "existing" BSA "program", or at least the BSA organization. Whether you consider it "Scouting" is up to you. I clicked on the "Exploring Explosion" link and it seems pretty clear that it is just a stepped-up marketing campaign to grow the Exploring career exploration program that has been around for years under that name (80's? 90's? Whenever the Venturing program was split off to be what used to be Exploring) and was around under other names since the 60's or 70s. Right here in the town where I work there is a Law Explorer post that I have been thinking of getting involved in. So presumably the "Explorer Explosion" will be designed to attract more participants, more units, more sponsoring organizations and possibly more career fields, but it is not a new program. On the first sentence, I hope they are more successful than the "Soccer and Scouting" program, which the BSA thought was intended to produce more Scouts but the participants mostly decided was just another chance to play soccer. I remember a DE telling me "We've got these kids signing up to play soccer for a second year, which isn't the point. They are supposed to play soccer for awhile and then form into Cub Scout dens, but their parents aren't stepping forward to be leaders or to hold meetings." (To which my reply (spoken only to myself) was, "What made you think they would?") As for your second sentence, what he said is: "Additionally, local councils have embarked on innovative programs to reach out to younger youth. We need to truly study this and determine if this is helpful or harmful to overall growth in the program." I guess that can be read two ways. I read it to imply that they have tried to reach out to kids younger than Tigers and it isn't working out. But I can see how you could read it the other way. To me, the fact that various councils have been "piloting" kindergarten programs for what seems like 6-7-8 years, and National has never adopted this program nationwide, suggests to me that National isn't interested in doing so. Yes, it is about minorities and immigrants, but I don't think "PC" has anything to do with it. National wants every youth of Scouting ages (boys only where applicable) to be in a BSA program. If you are idealistic, this is just because they want every youth to benefit from the programs of the BSA. If you are cynical (like me), this is also because more members = more registration fees and probably = more donations = higher salaries (and more jobs) at National, councils and all around.