NJCubScouter

18 hours ago, Rick_in_CA said:

For clarity, here is the complete DRP from the BSA Charter and Bylaws (Article IX, Section 1):

Interestingly, the DRP does not say anything about kicking out Scouts who do not believe in God or some other higher power.  I don't think it is even implied.  (For adult leaders, it is clearly stated that only persons who are "willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles" are qualified to be leaders.   I wonder what percentage of adult leaders don't actually agree with some portion of the DRP.)

57 minutes ago, FireStone said:

What I don't get is why anyone feels it necessary to wear the Eagle rank badge as an adult, when there are plenty of opportunities to display your Eagle accomplishment in other ways. There's the square knot (and 2 varieties to choose from if you want to pony up for the NESA Life Member option), Eagle neckerchiefs (again, multiple options), You can throw in an Eagle neckerchief slide if you want to, or wear an Eagle bolo, Eagle belt buckle, if your Council has a special Eagle shoulder patch you can wear that. There are Eagle rings, necklaces, jackets patches, various other patches and emblems, hats, dog tags, walking stick medallions, pins, bumper stickers, keychains, the list goes on and on. 

When not in uniform you can wear an Eagle t-shirt. Or you can wear it under your uniform for even more Eagle-ness. 

I wish they made some things for us Lifes for Life.  Not even a Life coffee mug.   

48 minutes ago, skeptic said:

How about we simply ask all members to vouch that they are not the center of the universe and that "something" greater and better than themselves may exist, whether they call it God, god, or something?

You want teenagers to declare that they are not the center of the Universe?  Good luck with that. 

17 minutes ago, blw2 said:

As treasurer, I hated that it seemed like we were forever asking for more money..... we need your dues.... we need your camping fee..... ah, we still have some unpaid dues.... time to collect the deposit for summer camp... and then the fundraisers which really end up in part a way to ask for more money from parents...

That's one of the reasons why my troop can never keep a good treasurer for very long, especially the part about having to ask parents multiple times to pay dues.  Right now our CC is doubling as treasurer, which is not ideal, but on the other hand he just retired so he has a little more time available than most of us.

The National Forests are not exactly distributed evenly around the country.  The closest National Forest to me is 3 to 4 hours away.  With gasoline now back up to $3 per gallon, and multiple vehicles making the trip, how much are you really saving as opposed to the $100 fee for a site at our council camp for the weekend?  (I'm actually guessing at the $100 part, but it's probably somewhere around there.)

There are some "free" campsites.  I believe you can still camp along the AT basically for free, and a good stretch of it is within say 90 minutes of my home.  But I don't think too many troops go backpacking every month, either.

Shortridge, you're saying $1,080 per year plus equipment, Qwasze is giving an estimate of $100 per month ($1,200 per year), I think you're both in the right ballpark.  Since you say you're lowballing it, $1,100-$1,200 is probably the right range.  Part of it depends on how you view operating costs (summer camp, meals for weekend camping trips, etc.) vs. "capital expenditures" (uniform, handbook, personal camping equipment, etc.)  You also have to consider whether the registered adult leaders are paying their own registration fees or whether it is coming out of the dues (which means the dues may have to be higher.) 

You also need to consider whether all 11 of those camping trips are going to be "standard" overnighters (i.e. rent a cabin or a campsite at a BSA camp, state park or somewhere else with reasonable rates), or whether there are going to be any "special trips."  About twice a year our troop does something "special" like going to one of the military academies and taking the tour plus going to a football game (we are about halfway between West Point and Annapolis), "camping" on the Battleship New Jersey, camping at Knoebel's amusement park in Pa., or something like that.  Between the tickets to get into whatever you're going to, the food and everything else, those trips always seem to cost in the $50-60 range per person.*  This of course means that the cost is under your control to some degree, but you get what you pay for.  Back when the economy was tanking I gently suggested that we may want to ease up on the $50-60 trips, but I don't think we did.

Then there is the question of absolute cost vs. relative cost.  If a youth is not doing Scouting, what else is he/she doing, and what does it cost?  There are plenty of ways to spend more than $475 for a week of activities during the summer.  Or the kid can sit at home like a lump for 8 straight weeks, which costs only the price of electricity for playing video games.  But most people don't regard the latter option as being desirable. 

*I guess I should mention that that estimate is as of 2009, which is when my son aged out and I basically "retired" from camping.  Some of those trips probably cost more now.

11 hours ago, shortridge said:

Do you mind showing me where BSA said it would be a separate, parallel program?

I looked briefly and found this: http://www.bsaonsc.org/familyscouting.html

Admittedly this is a council site, but the "parallel (separate) girl program for ages 11 to 18" is what National was talking about last fall.  I will try later to find something directly from National.  There probably are relevant links in discussions in this forum from last fall, but the content of the linked pages may have changed in the meantime.  

Quote

You can also read about the program options for charter organizations to sponsor units at the 11 to 18 year-old level. These options are: The current Boy Scout Troop model for boys ages 11 to 18; a parallel (separate) girl program for ages 11 to 18; or sponsoring both (separate) programs within the organization.

Girls participating in the 11 to 18 year-old program will follow the same curriculum and pursue the same rank advancements all the way up to Eagle Scout that Boy Scout Troop members pursue.

One of the troops in my area is chartered to a "Friends of..." entity, but they have been able to arrange to use one of the public school gyms for their weekly meetings, and they have also arranged with one of the local churches for storage space.

Yes, let’s please keep it to neckerchiefs. Not every thread needs to be turned into an ideological discussion.

9 hours ago, JoeBob said:

I would hypothesize that National's goal was financial; how do we maximize our existing base of free volunteer labor in order to protect our salaries?  Starting another program with a new volunteer base would not have yielded the same return.  

I usually wouldn’t passs up an opportunity to accuse National of money-grubbing, but I don’t understand your point.  Why wouldn’t they want more volunteers, when each new volunteer represents a new registration fee? And there are going to have to be more volunteers anyway, and many of them are going to have to be women.

I have no inside information, but if I had to guess why they didn’t create a separate program, it would be that in designing the separate program, they encountered too many issues and decisions that would have to be made, and they just decided to make their lives easier and include girls in the existing program.

9 hours ago, SouthScout said:

Why didn't BSA just start a parallel program and call it Girl Guides. BP did it.

I don’t think the name is the real issue here.  The real issue is that there is actually no girls’ program to name - as BSA said there would be, last year.  It was supposed to be a separate, parallel program with exactly the same “program.”  (Though whoever came up with the exactly-the-same-program part apparently had never read Family Life Merit Badge requirement 7.a.  But anyway...)  Boy Scouts was still supposed to Boy Scouts.  Now you see it, now you don’t... no separate program, so there’s nothing to name... except to rename Boy Scouts to be gender-neutral.

But for what it’s worth, when we were discussing the name of the separate girls’ program (back before it was “disappeared”), I did suggest Girl Guides.  Somebody pointed out basically the same thing that ParkMan did above. I think it would have been worth exploring, at least.  If there was a separate program.

41 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

Why would anyone impose METRICS BASED MANAGEMENT on youth who are supposed to be playing a game with a purpose?

Well, that question would also apply to troop-level JTE, right?

Hey, when I graduated from 8th grade, in 1972, the entire class (about 350 kids I think) had to sing the song "Teach Your Children", which at that point had been out for 2 or 3 years.  I don't think anyone decided not to graduate because of it, but there may have been some parents who went fleeing into the night.  I am sure it was truly horrifying. 

I hesitate to respond to any of this, but I suspect there are some out there who have joined the forum fairly recently who are scratching their heads about what is going on in this thread.  I therefore feel compelled (perhaps foolishly) to offer some explanation.  I am trying to word this as neutrally as possible.

This thread, and the two posts in this thready by @SCOUTER-Terry, the owner of Scouter.com, were a response to the reaction of some in this forum to the decision by the BSA in 2015 to end the exclusion of leaders on the basis of sexual orientation, except for CO's that are religious institutions whose values dictate otherwise.  During that time, there were certain posts that the moderators (of which I was and am one) viewed as unacceptable for this forum - some with photos and other graphic graphics - and we took the actions that we felt were appropriate.  A few of the posts were, quite frankly, disgusting. There were those in this forum who disagreed with certain actions by some of the moderators, and said so.  Some disagreed very strongly, and there was a certain amount of (in my view) "bashing" of the moderators.  Of course, those doing the "bashing" felt that it was fully justified.  Things got pretty heated.  One person ended up getting himself banned.  A couple of others left in a huff.  (In light of EagleDad's comments above, I feel compelled to mention that he always stated his views in a gentlemanly way.  But some others did not.) 

Into this scene strides the owner of this forum. Terry's first post in this thread clarifies what is acceptable on the subject and what isn't.  The second, in response to further complaints about the moderators, basically says hey, lay off the moderators, and if you want to complain, complain to me (Terry), not in the forum.  I personally appreciated his comments.  Nobody was being prevented from expressing their opinion in a Scoutlike way.

If anyone really wants to see the background of what I am talking about, I would suggest first reading this thread from the beginning, and then, for those who really have time to kill and are not of faint heart, read the threads in the "Issues and Politics" section from, say, the second week of July to the first week of August, 2015.  You will not see the "worst" few posts, because they were deleted.  But some of what is there is still bad enough.

All of which, among other things, led a significant number of people (not including me) to feel that the Issues and Politics section should not be here at all, but here it remains.

On 6/5/2018 at 8:18 PM, ItsBrian said:

You should’ve had an incentive. Food, something that would’ve embarrassed a leader, meeting with only games, etc...

Make the last-place patrol sing "I'm a Little Teapot," in 8-part harmony?     

52 minutes ago, 160voyageur said:

I'm not, however that person could be from my unit. We've been chartered for over 80 years. Once upon a time our scouts traveled to England for the 3 peaks challenge. At the time they started calling themselves LeVoyageurs. In recent years our troop dropped the "Le" and became The Voyageurs. Either way, glad I stumbled upon this place. 

We're glad you did as well!    (And we now return to our discussion only of current events at Philmont in this thread, so I don't get my fellow moderators annoyed with me.)

Welcome to the forum 160voyageur!  Eons ago (like maybe 10 years) there was a frequent poster named LeVoyageur, but I assume you're not him.   

2 hours ago, Terasec said:

as for 1936

that was a war time need

No need for such post war time

and den mothers were just that den mothers not leaders in charge of programming

1936 was not wartime unless you were in Spain, Ethiopia, arguably China, arguably Palestine, maybe a few other places.  I do not think the U.S. had any military forces in combat anywhere, and probably relatively few land forces outside the U.S.  The Den Mother position was not created due to a shortage of men.   It was probably designated as "Den Mother" because it was the expectation that den meetings would be held after school, and dad was at work, and mom was "working in the home," so she was available. (Things have changed, obviously.)  I would say that by the time I was a Cub Scout (mid-60s) Den Mother had become a genuine leadership position.

3 hours ago, Peter1919 said:

I note that your National Presdient role has recently been renamed National Chair. Seems to me like the title of President of the BSA might have just been freed up  

I did not realize they had done that.  But here it is: https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/about-the-bsa/national-leadership/national-president-elect/

In fact, they seem to have renamed it retroactively, because it says Randall Stevenson became National Chair in 2016.  He didn’t, because it was called President then.

i cannot find any explanation for the change, but if I had to take a guess it would probably be that it was a little confusing to have both a President and a Chief Scout Executive.  (In most nonprofit organizations the CSE position would be called Executive Director, which fits in with President (unpaid or at least non-full time, usually the head of the board of directors or trustees) a little better.) If that’s the case, the title President is gone, and isn’t coming back.

Well, regardless of whether having a Chief Scout (or something similar) would be good for the BSA - and I am not convinced it would be - it is not going to happen because the CSE and other top guys at National would not want to be upstaged.  Kind of like James E. West in ancient times. 

On 5/29/2018 at 1:57 PM, qwazse said:

For example, does anybody know if Robert's Rules have guidance on use of digital communication/teleconferencing?

The current edition does.  A "deliberative assembly" (which is what RR focuses on, it could be anything from a five-member troop committee to an Elks convention to a house of a state legislature, or beyond) can have an "electronic meeting" as long as (and this is a paraphrase, I don't have it in front of me) everybody can hear each other, in real time, as if they were all in one room.

14 minutes ago, CherokeeScouter said:

Well, I hope this doesn't include Eagle BOR. We are going to do one via teleconference, Skype or FaceTime. 

Kid is 18 and just came down with mono. 

In my book, that's "being at the meeting."  You are just holding the meeting in a different way, for a good reason.

36 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Official line is that it was the amount of visitors.  As was discussed I guess it depends on the why of the museum.  If to promote BSA and be visible to everyone, Dallas is good.  If just another box to check from National...yeah I guess we gotta have a museum, then why not Philmont

Candidly I do not think they promoted it or made it a "Destination".  I did visit the Dallas one a few years back.  Good mementos and items.  Animatronic Baden Powell was might creepy

I'm assuming that before the museum was in the Dallas area, it (along with the rest of National HQ) was in North Brunswick, NJ, which is less than 20 miles from my house.  I would have just kept the whole thing here. 

As for the animatronic BP, if I ever do go I'll try to skip that one. 

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

Never should've moved from Dallas in the first place. I get the idea of putting it by Philmont, I really do....but why move it from one the largest growing cities in america to Cimarron, New Mexico.

If they really wanted to move it that badly, should've gone to the summit. Lord Knows they need more attention. 

I think that was just a money thing.  (What else is new?)  I believe they were renting the property in Dallas, so now they are no longer paying that rent, and instead they improved their own property and can keep the revenue from the museum for themselves.  (Where it will naturally be used to keep our registration fees from increasing again, cough cough.) Of course the fire is interrupting that, but major fires happen in cities too, just not as often as they used to.

12 hours ago, David CO said:

I enjoy watching the youngest grandkids playing in the sandbox. I will sometimes even come down to their level, to play in the sand with them and help them build their sandcastles. But let's be clear about this. I don't really get a kick out of playing with sand. I outgrew that about a half a century ago. I just like to spend some time with the grandkids.

Maybe your grandchildren don't like playing in the sand either, they just like playing with you, and they have figured out that if they play in the sand you will come out and watch, and eventually join them. 

12 hours ago, David CO said:

I feel the same way about scouting. I enjoy watching the boys play their game. I give my time to support them and help make them successful. It is their game, not mine. I outgrew the game with a purpose many, many years ago.

I think the adult leaders are part of the game, though not playing the game.  In a "D&D" type game we would be considered the "game master." (This is only a theory, which I just made up on the spot, and I know it is not a perfect analogy.  We are not making the rules (National does that) but we are "enforcing" the rules (including providing support and guidance) in a way that allows the boys to play the game properly.)

On the other hand, part of what we are supposed to be doing is setting a good example, so sometimes the line between "player" and "game master" begins to blur, and it may seem like we are playing the game ourselves.  As has been mentioned, some adults do take it too far.

56 minutes ago, David CO said:

That's why I think it is so important to have an active Chartered Organization to act as a buffer between BSA and the scouters. BSA is a business. They are only in this for money. They will locate and exploit vulnerabilities in scouts/scouters in order to take them for every penny they can.

I did not realize it was the role of the CO to be a "buffer" between National and unit Scouters, at least not on a day-to-day basis.  What page of what book is that on?