NJCubScouter

I feel the same way: Once I have learned of something new-ish, the 20-something's are automatically done with it.

Maybe this guy should do a whole series on the Personal Management MB requirements. Heart and Brain could probably do a pretty good job on 3b as well. Added note: For anyone looking for that site, "Awkward" has two w's in it, both in the URL and in real life. (I don't usually point out spelling/typing errors but this seemed like it should be an exception.) I went to that site, read about 10 of the cartoons, and did not find a single one of them funny in the slightest. The one above is only funny in the context in which Tahawk posted it. Oh well.

Don't look now but I think you have just invented a new verb.

In fairness, being focused on "the interests of the corporate organization" is pretty much an inherent part of the job description of the CEO of any organization. One would hope that in a youth-serving organization, "the interests of the corporate organization" are consistent with what best serves the youth. In my opinion that is usually true in the BSA. Not always, but usually.

We had a troop meeting after the announcement but nobody talked to the boys about it at all. For that matter, we also had a committee meeting after the announcement but the subject did not come up "formally", just in discussions "on the side" before and after the actual meeting. I suggested, and most agreed, that since our troop has been kind of gradually dwindling away (for a variety of reasons) and most of our attention is being directed to recruiting in order to save the troop, that if there is still a viable troop around in two years so that we have to deal with this issue, that's a win. In other words, we aren't really talking about it other than idle chit-chat in reaction to the announcement. If I had to guess about our CO's reaction, it would be that they would probably be willing to charter unit(s) with girls in them. This might actually be of benefit in re-starting the defunct Cub pack at this CO. But we haven't raised the issue with them, nor are there any current plans to raise the issue.

And just in time for Halloween, too.

Leaving aside any advancement-related issues, I think having a boy be both Patrol Leader and troop Scribe is asking for trouble. Some kids could make it work, but I think chances are (meaning more than 50%) that one or both roles would suffer. That doesn't necessarily mean that all combinations of jobs would present the same problem. ASPL and troop Librarian are probably ok. Scribe and Historian are probably ok, especially since they are somewhat related. But I think combining SPL or PL with any other position is not a good idea. (This is all assuming at least a medium-sized troop. If you only have one or two patrols it's obviously a different situation, and some doubling-up may be necessary anyway.)

Even if I thought that this was a valid analogy (which I do not), the "robber" in this scenario is BSA National, not anyone in this forum. (Well, we do have one regular poster who has identified himself as the national director of health and safety, but he has posted about this subject maybe once, and the post that I recall did not express an opinion on the subject, and presumably he was not at the center of the decision-making process on this subject if he was involved at all.) None of us here made this decision. Some of us were among the thousands who participated in a survey - some of us, including me, "without authorization", but if you put something on the Internet, somebody is going to find it - but that's it. We all have our opinions, which seem to cover the entire spectrum of possibilities on this subject. What Tampa Turtle said is: "Obviously this is an issue where men and women of sincerity and integrity can disagree", and I agree with that statement. If a person disagreed with it, that would suggest (to me, at least) that they believe that people with a different viewpoint are part of some sort of nefarious cabal with ulterior motives. (David, you didn't say that, but I think the "robber" analogy suggests something along those lines.) I don't see that here. I just see people who sincerely hold different views.

I have always wondered the same thing If a kid joins Little League or Pop Warner Football whatever, I assume there is some entrance fee and the cost of equipment etc. and I am sure the families are asked to sell candy bars or work at concession stands or whatever, to raise money from OTHER people. (Someone correct me if I am wrong; my kids weren't in those things, and to the extent they participated in sports, which wasn't much, it was all recreation-department connected, and if THEY need extra money the town just increases my property taxes.) So far, all of what I have described is very similar to Scouting. But I don't think Little League or Pop Warner also hit up the parents of members with a hard-sell pitch for MORE money. Scouting does.

Do any of the adults involved in these farms/businesses have any connection with Scouting and perhaps could be persuaded to become a Textiles MB counselor? Maybe a parent of one of the Scouts who lives on a farm? Or even someone not connected with Scouting who might be interested in doing some community service?

I like your little interjections there, RS. I am kind of confused about exactly what this is. And by the way, "scout code"? Outdoor Code? Morse? Semaphore? Pirate's? (Really more like guidelines.) (I know, I know, he was probably referring to the Scout Oath or maybe the Scout Law, but it makes you (or at least me) wonder how much Scouting knowledge the guy has if he got such a basic thing wrong.)

We do something similar, not with a former SM but with one of our current long-time ASM's who has also given FOS presentations to other units, but when he presents to our troop he keeps it short and low-pressure. My problem with "outside" reps is not just that they ramble, but the high-pressure approach that tries to make families feel guilty if they don't pony up even more money than they are already spending just to be the parents of a Cub Scout or Boy Scout. I just bought a new uniform (for a total of about $120 including patches and new belt, with shirt and pants "Made in Bangladesh") so perhaps I am feeling even less "charitable" than usual towards the BSA hierarchy.

Well, admittedly character (or the lack thereof) is usually a difficult thing to identify in a photo or video. What I have seen in those posted by @@Cambridgeskip are mixed-gender groups of kids having fun and, more importantly, not being afraid of being made to look like a fool in front of the opposite gender. It is a limited "data set", but it is what we've got.

Boys acting differently around girls has been my main reservation about all this. I have seen it happen. On the other hand, the photos, videos and descriptions that Cambridgeskip and others have posted over the years suggest to me that in the UK the kids seem to do what they need to do regardless of gender. I know that attitudes are different between the US and UK, but boys are still boys and girls are still girls, on either side of the ocean. What is going to happen here, people can predict all they want, but nobody really knows.

Since this is local option, I don't see why that would be the case. No LDS unit needs to do anything different from what they are doing now. They will not be required to have girls in their Cub Scout packs and they will not be required to have charters for units in the parallel program at Boy-Scout-age level. Besides, I would be very surprised if BSA National did not explain what I just said to the LDS leadership, and get their clearance, before announcing this decision. The BSA does not want to lose the LDS members any more than you want to leave the BSA.

I see no logic in that. If that was going to happen, it would have happened a long time ago. Lawyers (hypothetical lawyers) who wanted to get girls into Boy Scout troops did not need this announcement in order to take action. And, for the one area in which "local option" is already in effect, it has worked. At least, there have been no reports of any problems. And if there WERE any problems anywhere, they would have shown up in this forum within 5 minutes.

I agree. I think the whole "making Scouting more accessible to families" thing has been a euphemism for "making families' checkbooks more accessible to Scouting." Hey, that's pretty good. I thought of that myself.

Please, no. No no no. The last thing we need.

Well, as I said before, that is what they said they were going to do, but that is not what they did.

Well, if I understand your question, I think that is exactly what the plan is. Boy Scouts for boys and "Something" Scouts for girls, with different units for each. Not coed troops.

I am sure there will be detailed guidance from National on how to deal with all possible situations. <Sarcasm off> Actually, I am hopeful that there will be at least some type of guidance from National about something.

Yes, it is local option. This was in the BSA's official statement: I think that when they say "Existing packs" they really mean "chartered organizations" - especially since they are not going to rely just on existing CO's but are going to try to get new CO's on board as well.

As will I. And I wasn't really in favor of this.

I assume you are being sarcastic. I just saw a notice about an increase in council fees due with the recharter, on top of the national increase.

Just to be clear, this is NOT a decision to allow girls into Boy Scout troops. I understand that some here believe that will be the result, or the "second step", or whatever, but the fact remains that the BSA is setting up a separate, parallel program for Boy Scout-age girls, in which they can earn Eagle. What I find interesting is that girls will be admitted to Cub Scouts in the "2018 program year" (question: Does the "program year" start in January, or September?) but the new girls' Boy Scout-age program "will be announced in 2018 and projected to be available in 2019." I believe that in the famous video, CSE Surbaugh said this is what they would NOT do; he said the change in Cub Scouts membership would NOT be implemented until a new program was in place for the girl-Webelos to cross over to. My interpretation of this is that National is really anxious to start signing up girls for Cub Scouts but they realized it was going to take some time to work out the logistics of an entirely new program - even if it is identical to Boy Scouts in program, advancement, etc., and the reference to Eagle suggests that that may be the plan. Also notice the word "projected", which means they will TRY to have the program implemented in 2019. Projections have a way of changing over time.