Jump to content

OldEagle4Life

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OldEagle4Life

  1. Secret DE,

     

    How about a case of an adult who gets falsely accused of something, say some form of child endangerment. It seems from these discussions the BSA's policy when it comes to these issues would be to act immediately and terminate a leader's membership. But since we've also had several forum members say the BSA is not an investigatory institution, would a leader falsely accused ever be allowed back into service with a unit if the BSA does not do followups on this information themselves. Since I assume that this kind of accusation would be reported to the authorities, would they communicate this information between each other over time, or would the organization lose a good leader for good because of someone trying to get back at someone else?

     

    OldEagle

  2. A parent recently asked a question at our last troop comittee meeting that we were unable to answer so I thought I would put it here at the forums, since I think this would be a dodged question by our council execs.

     

    The question basically came down to this:

    There has been a lot of headline news over the country in the past few years of leaders being removed from thier positions of trust due to accusations and lawsuits over inappropriate behavior and actions both in and out of the scouting world.

    If a leader is removed from his/her position in scouting by the Council/Region/National due to an accusation of inappropriate conduct with youth, would that leader ever be allowed back in if no legal charges say were ever filed. Perhaps because there was no physical evidence of a crime or someone was falsely accused of a crime?

     

    This parent asked this question because there have been a few leaders in our regional area lately who have been accused, and all found guilty so far, of various crimes. She wanted to know what happens if a leader was not found guilty or prosecuted.

    Would they ever be allowed back in?

     

    Thanks

    Old Eagle

  3. As a former Summer Camp Program Director, let me tell you, the Advancement Committe in our council, while they do "sign off" on summer camp councilors as MB councilors, they do not do ANYTHING in regards to quality control. In fact, when we wrote the letter for the Council Advancement chair to sign, authorizing our staff to be councilors (only the 18+ year olds mind you, since of course the under 18 year olds CANNOT be councilors, yet they are doing the majority of the supposed "teaching") he signed it no problem. Then I noticed names missing from the list, went back through, added them, said "oh here, mistake, sign this letter please" he just looked at me, smiled and signed away.

     

    There is no quality control at summer camps. Most summer camps are merit badge factories, there is absolutely NO denying that. I get disgusted when we have ratios of scouts and staff that is above 20:1, 30:1 or even 40:1 in some of our merit badge sessions. I had made it my goal to try and elimnate that from our camp by offering multiple sessions of all badges to spread the load around, and it helped. But still, where there used to be 40:1, there would now be 10:1 in 1 session, and 30:1 in another, still way too many. The main reason for this: council's are unwiling to spend the money necessary to support the summer camp's the way they are suppose to.

     

    According to my NCS training, we should not care if we charge 300 a week (we don't, we charge under 200) if that will give the scouts a superb quality program, by hiring and paying (key poing being PAYING) high quality staff. 18 year olds should make at least 3000 dollars according to national in the ideal scouting setting, for their 7-8 weeks of 16 hour days, 6 days a week. At most camps, you're lucky to get 4-5 people in total paid over 3000. This is of course a very general number and not taking into account volunteer run camps (which there are some of these). Council's will not put out the money for high number of staff and the money to pay them well, to retain and entice them to work.

     

    My camp earned 100K+ in revenue the last summer I worked there as PD, and this year, they are in budget deficit somehow, and are CUTTING staff, i pity the units (including my own unfortunately) who will be attending camp there this summer. I would go into this more, but this is not the summer camp thread and i diverge.

     

    If scouts were held to do what the requirement states for most badges at summer camps then most scouts would come away with 4 partials rather than 4 completed badges every year. While I have no problem with this, partials are not evil, they are just incomplete and can be completed at their leisure, it is unfortunately the parents and the scoutmasters who have an issue with this. The general philosphy of many leaders is that scouts go to camp, to earn badges and to come away with advancement and awards, instead of memories and good times. This is definetly stereotypical, but an all to common occurance for summer camps.

     

    I wish to god that leaders would start holding summer camp's, council exec's and camp director's accountable for completing requiermetns, it would drastically improve the quality of what scouts learn and can do, DRASTICALLY.

     

    I was on the inside, i saw the problems, I tried to make change, I succeed to a degree, but failed miserably in most respects do to the nature of the beast of the BSA, the corporate mentatily. As has been expressed on other forums here the bsa is a corporation, but they should worry less about money and income and # of scouts, and improve what they have for the scouts here now, and those to come, then try to turn a profit in this non-for-profit organization.

     

    Sorry for the rant a little off topic, but i have strong feelings on this issue.

  4. If that is the case, then it begs to ask the question why people aren't supporting that council, why they aren't doing popcorn, why they aren't going to the sumer camps?

     

    If they are (we have seen no information on some of these aspects, so all any of us here can do is speculate) then the problem does indeed lie elsewhere, and while I would LOVE to blame it on bad management it very well could indeed be in large part do to these other circumstances.

     

    But what if it isn't? What if there really is a bigger problem. Even if it is "disloyalty" to the council (I personally think disloyalty begets disloyalty), if the council/distrcits, etc... did not have good programs, I for one, would not want my scouts or my own children to spend time trying to improve the program and instead go where there was a good program, at least activity wise. While that might seem morally ambigious, in reality, that is what most people do, and can we blame them!! Why should most people work to save a dying ship, when the "SS Good Scouting Program at neighboring council" is alive and well and can provide those good experiences.

     

    The bottom line is there really were better ways to go about this, I can't tell you what they are, my financial knowlege is not very extensive, but a warning sign a warning letter, a heads up SHOULD have been issued 2 years ago, if the money issues were bad. If one was, well, then i stand down and say its their own fault for not working with the council to solve the problem then.

  5. In my troop, we typically have multiple boys make eagle a year (3+ is not uncommon). As a result, due to the complexity, the amount of planning, time needed to organize one, and anything everything else that goes into planning and executing an ECOH, we typically only do 1 a year. While some people argue that this lessons the signifigance of an individual achieving Eagle (no one in our troop complains along these lines, I would say because we don't present the option of individual ECOH's, if someone ever asked for one and would be willing to help/do most of the planning, we would of course allow it).

     

    For us, making Eagle is like adding an extention onto a family, it should be a grand event that everyone can see and appreciate. We have an elaborate ceremony, plenty of letters of recongnition garnered from around the nation, Candle lighting ceremonies, etc.... The boys write their own bio's of their time in the troop and how scouting has affected their lives, and either they read them, or the MC will read the bios to the audience.

     

    What I'm trying to get at is that the Troop takes care of everything for the Eagle, as to say "You've done your part, you earned all the ranks, the advancement, the Project was plannend and implemented successfully, your parents have lived through your tenure as a scout, now sit back and relax while we honor you one more time" The troop takes care of everything for the eagle.

     

    From buying all of the Eagle Kit supplies, to ordering a large (or several large) cakes, to getting the letters from around the country in on time to give to the scouts. The only thing that the boys must do is help with a little of the actual physical setup (we ask the eagle familes to come in the day before and help do a little cleaning and arrangement rather than asking the rest of the boys from the troop to do so) and they are responsible for making out the invitations (which we buy for them) to send to whomever they want at the ECOH.

     

    In my troop's mind, the Boy has done enough, now we will do the rest. But if someone did want their own individual (and indvidualized) ceremony, they would be granted it.

  6. Well apparently someone did not do their budget right for this council, or else they would not have to charge 52 dollars a head, a year in addition to registration fees i would assume ( i have yet to see anything on that aspect of the council's budget) and FOS, and popcorn, etc...

     

    A scout office can look nice and serve an important function, but does not have to be large and extravagent. When you go to buy clothes, most of Americans today do not go for the builidng that looks the shinest, but for the most economical, close by, and shopper smart choice. Unfortunately the BSA has a monopoly on uniforms so people will have no choice. Would they still go to the scout office to buy uniforms if it was not a huge and extravagent office. I would safely venture a guess and say yes.

     

    Scouts do not need to be cheap, lord knows nothing in the BSA IS cheap, but it should be managed. Excessive costs, professional salaries, office space should be controlled, and the vast majority of funds should go to enhance the actual program, primarily the scout camps and scouting activities, not facilities that could (hopefully, but still only a "could") bring in more boys and enhance the program. If money was flowing in and just laying around would be one thing, but in a fiscally tight economic situation like most americans are in today, that is just unrealisitc.

     

    Out of curiosity, how are volunteers on boards of directors picked, i personally don't know. I do know that our exec board and all other upper committees are filled with the rich and upper class, the affluent and effluent of our community, who might not think spending xxx amount of dollars on a building, to look nice, is a bad thing, whereas your SM's and CC's for your troop's just might think so.

     

    Even some of the upper committee's in my council are restricted, and in a volunteer run organization, i stop and ask...why? Our property committee meetings are only by invitation only, not just anyone can attentd. I would like to know what they are thinking about buyin, especially if my troop popcorn sales and my personal FOS donations are going to help them buy it. If anyone knows why committees like this are closed to the general volunteer population, and can defend that rationale, i personally would really like to know why.

     

    OldEagle

  7. Wow, ya beat me to it. I was so prepared to say something when i saw the ID phrase, but got distracted. And look, before I could say something about someone saying something, someone ELSE has said something!! AHH too many users online and too many active threads right now.

     

    But definetly, interesting choice of words :)

  8. My Philmont crew was set up as such

     

    9 youth

    3 adults

     

    1 Crew Chief (rather than trail chief but same difference)

    1 assistant Crew Chief

    1 Navigator

    1 assistant navigator

    1 Chaplain's aide

    2 "cooks"

    2 "camp organizers"

     

    Those last 2, i just made up the name now, because I can't remember what we called them. Everyone had a job. Job's at Philmont are important, it helps everyone to know what has to be done, and to make sure that someone is always responsible for making sure it happens. Whether that is making the big decisions, figuring out which way is North and South, prepping and cleaning up the meals, hanging the bear bags...whatever.

     

    My crew decided to assign people to jobs around the campsite on a permeant basis for our trip. ie, the cooks/cleaners and camp organizers. We had considered the option of rotating jobs, among everyone, not just those 4 people (5 because the chaplain's aide's job wasn't TOO extensive). So every day everyone did the same job, while on a long trek, especially a Rayado (sp) trek, this might get monotnonous, on a 10 day trek, it isn't bad. And the plus side is, you get GOOD at your job. So whereas the first few days, it might take 20 minutes or more to get your bear bags together and up where there are no pre laid lines, by the time we were 1/2 way through the trek, those 2-3 guys working on that stuff were DONE in 10 minutes. The cooks got good at not burning food (after the 1st day) so they wouldn't have to deal with crunchies and less for the sump (a drain at every campsite for getting rid of small food particles and unusable liquids to keep animals away and increase leave no trace).

     

    Its good for everyone to have something to do, but it is up to the crew going to make those decisions as to what they want everyone to do. A Crew Chief is one of those more important jobs, because they will help make the final decisions on what trek to pick, any modifications to make at base camp, and attend any meetings with the advisors if you are going with an "organized" council.

     

    I'm sure the Philmont guru's on this board will have plenty to add to this thread!

     

    OldEagle

  9. I have never heard of anyone denied eagle for not attending the seminar. It has been around for I would say, 3 years now give or take. Most people have no problem attending the seminars, some learn things, especially if they are from a "joe schmo" troop. I just personally dislike interference, whether meant to be positive or negative, of this nature on any level.

     

    The seminars are offrered every month, at every district roundtable (so there are 4 place you can go every month to get this done). You also could schedule one if you have a group who would like to do it, and they were offered, at least this past summer, every week at camp. I think it was the past 2 summers actually.

     

    About eagle mentors, they don't use this to assign mentors at all, since the scouts can attend the seminar any time, any place (preferably with a guardian, but a troop leader can fill in if no parents are available). I am pretty sure it is primarily to hand out Eagle Packets and distribute information, to make sure everyone has the right info. I would personally prefer if it was an optional program, highly encouraged, so that those who HAVE questions can get them answered, those troops that WANT their boys to have council/district committee's provide additional information concerning Eagle.

     

    My beef is just that they make it in essence then, a requirement for Eagle Scout, to participate in this seminar, which they should't. Is it a bad thing, in and of itself, no. It's annoying pain in the ()3 is all.

  10. On page 23 of this publication it states "No Council, District, unit or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from any advancement requirement.

     

    OldGreyEagle, when you quoted this and the above lines talking about the executive board, you were talking about the national exec board, right?

     

    I felt this related enough to post on this thread...COUNCIL's adding requirements for advancement. My council has a requirement that makes all scouts, once they are star or life, attend a seminar on Eagle. They can go any time once they turn star (so they may have several years to do this, and it is only 1-2 hours) but before they can even start to plan out their eagle project or anything else, they must attend this seminar. I don't know how advancement committees deal with eagle canidates, but this seems like the same thing, just on the council level, and it has always irked me since I have always been told that NO ONE can add or subtract requirements in a normal scouting situation.

     

    So, is the council (this is sanctioned on every level of the council, from the exec board down to the district advancement committee) allowed to actually do this, and to prohibit a boy from completing his work on eagle and his eagle project if he does not attend this seminar!

     

    OldEagle

  11. I can see this happening to my council in just a few years, at least to a degree. They currently are moving to a new headquarters, which at the current size of their professional operation IS too small. But the new building is huge, at least 4-5 times bigger than what they have now, and are making due with at this point. Confernece rooms, training rooms, huge lobby, museum, etc... are not necessary. And this is the scaled down model, from the 2 story monster they were going to build 2 years ago (I saw the 3d model, it was huge). Now the plans are for a 1 story builidng that is even smaller than the original plans called for the 1st story to be in this new building, because they couldn't raise enough money.

     

    Fortunately they supposedly are not using any normal income to finance the construction of this builiding, and had a fund raising drive going for about 3 years to raise the 1 million they needed for a building.

     

    But, then the bills for the building will come in (electric, water, heat and so on). Plus the huge over staffing they have: 7 DE's, SE, ASE, 2 Field Directors, Finance director, camping director, 7 secretaries, 2-3 aides in the building and 1 full time and 2-3 part time scout shop employees. I'm sure I'm missing a few here. That pay roll has to be in the 500K plus range every year.

     

    We are a decent sized council, but in recent years we have not grown, but our professional staff has. I just hope the same thing does not happen to us and other council's as has happened to Momouth.

  12. I don't know if it is a requirement, when I went to Philmont we never even discussed the possiblity of using single person tents, primarily because we use troop tents and the troop doesn't own any personal tents (buddy system!!). I know that our ranger, and the leader in our troop who subsequently became a philmont ranger used a single person tent, but that was out of convience and the fact that the ranger shouldn't need to have anyone else sharing a tent with you for the hopefully 2 days they will be with you.

     

    Our troop has always taken T4's (timberline's) and slept 3 to a tent, whether it was adults, or youth's, at least in the past. Our last crew only did 2 per tent and that upped the quantities of tents to carry by 1/3. I personally think that individual tents would be a waste, just because of the extra space and weight they will take up. Every pound can count at philmont that you are going to carry, and while an individual tent will be smaller and hopefully lighter than a tent for 2-3, you now have 12 tents to carry total, 12 ground cloths, etc... rather then 4-6 tents spread out over 12 people (assuming you have a 12 person crew).

     

    I'm sure we have someone out here that is a philmont ranger, former ranger, or knows the details of philmont trek requirements who could give a definitive answer.

     

    But why did they buy the individual tents? Do they need them, or simply want them? I would hope by the time any scout goes to Philmont they would be well indocternated (sp) in the ways of the buddy system and would see the light of using that, even at night while sleeping.

  13. Just continuing another lively discussion on the true meaning of the G2SS.

     

    Hence the reason i started this thread. It has been good to see everyone's ideas and comments concerning liquid fuels. Honestly, if the scouts went out on a patrol campout, we would encourage them to use charcoal, rather than liquid fuels...would probably "reek vengence" on them if they used anything but sanctioned fire starters to start a fire. The only thing I would not be sure about would be propane cylinders. While they are liquid fuels, I feel much safer about them (well, assuming the people using them are acting and behaving responsibly) then about white gas or any other form of fuel the scouts can't just find off of the ground while out there on their own.

     

    Good debate!

  14. On a cub scout level I can see why this song might be a little ambigious in its usage, with the references in the main verse to "horrible ways to die!" :)

     

    And there are the subsequent versions about:

     

    Santa Claus is DEAD

    Here Comes peter cotton tale, hopping down the bunny trail, BANG

     

    my personal favorite that we created a few years ago was

     

    Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Sponge Bob Square Pants has DROWNED

    (but then again, i hate spongebob and think he is an entirely innapropriate cartoon for youngersters, even before the entire androgonous comments about the cartoon came out last year)

     

    Now on a Boy Scout level, this is one of my and everyone I know's favorite song. From being a summer camp staff member for years, this was always a camp favorite. We avoided using the phrase annoucements as much as possible and scripted it into a single place every week in order to ensure that we did not waste or go over board singing it (our version has at least 10 verses and goes on for quite a while).

     

    However, I do have a digital copy of an ultimate song book that I was working on for many years that never got published or finished, could never get it to print right, one day I will. It has many songs on many topics, cub scout and boy scout alike, if anyone is interested in attaining a copy, send me a message, and I will gladly email it to you.

     

    OldEagle

  15. Looking at the camping equipment post, I spun this off to get ideas, sorry if it has already been discussed.

     

    According to the Guide to Safe Scouting : "Knowledgeable adult supervision must be provided when Scouts are involved in the storage of chemical fuels, the handling of chemical fuels in the filling of stoves or lanterns, or the lighting of chemical fuels. The use of liquid fuels for starting any type of fire is prohibited."

     

    Which is of course a safety measure. But what about patrol camping, when there are no adults supervising, or for that matter on the camping trip what so ever. Especially if it is winter camping when wood fires are less encouraged than camp stove fires for cooking. When scouts are trying to follow leave no trace, recommendations for being the most thrifty when creating a fire to cook over (gas rather than wood) and when they are following set Boy Scout procedures they seem to contradict each other.

     

    So what are scouts to do in a situation like this, which while very specific is an entirely possible and plausible event!

  16. I would think that the worst potential intruder would be a parent who does not have custody of a child, at least that was the big thing at my camp. We were worried about random people of course, the news is only a big problem when we already have an issue in camp, and anyways, how in the world can you identify a sex offender on sight. Even if you have a photo list of sex offenders in the surrounding area, being able to recongnize them and make that connection...is just far fetched.

     

    We worried that a parent who did not have custody of a child would come into camp and take the child away. Since they really are the parent, saying that they cannot have them is a difficult decision, especially if the child WANTS to go with them.

     

    Any intruder policy should just focus on anyone who is acting suspicious while being in camp, or has come to attention as being a threat I would say.

  17. The crux of the argument with anything involving the ACLU, or any other 1st, 2nd or 35 millionth amendment is that it should provide for everyone to be equal under the law. How that is interpreted is of course the big debate. How far do we or should we take equality. Should it be in every little niche of our lives,

    should we regulate how people are treated equally in schools, in the work place, in the bedroom???

     

    I agree with the notion that the ACLU is proposing, that by allowing a organization, (any organization I will not single out the BSA, even though that is the group being highlited here), that has an open and active policy of discrimination to use a public or federal facilty that has anti discrimination rules IS a violation of constitutional rights.

     

    Do I want to see the BSA forced out of schools, military bases, public builings...of course not, and infact any leader that wants to see that happen should be ashamed. I do not want to say that the boy scouts must reap that which they sow, but by having active policies of discrimination, even if it is their

    right to do so, they have opened themselves up to such responses as the ACLU has done.

     

    I am actually quite pleased that there is litigation of this type, and of this level being thrown back against the BSA. It keeps us honest, when trustworthy seems to be fleeing this world

    on all levels. When the Dale case originally got to the SC, I had mixed feelings on what the outcome would be. On one hand, I hoped that the BSA would lose. The notion that we would say that because of what someone (a child or an adult, but a child specifically) believes, that they should not be allowed to join

    this great institution horrified me. While I understand that the BSA wants and needs to be able to control their own membership, they were shooting themselves in the leg at a time when membership was already on the rocks and public opinion of the group was in decline. But of course on the other hand, I really wanted the BSA to win that decision. If they had lost, imagine the sort of lawsuits that would open up against the BSA (anyone who had any kind of grudge against them membership wise, or anything else for that reason would have more ground to attack them on)!

     

    It was a win/lose situation all around. The organization becomes a discrimiatory, privatly owned group, or it becomes a public/holisitc group. I am glad they won, but I hope that sometime soon in the future the necessity for such rules in the BSA will go away, leaving them a private , yet all inclusive group.

     

    So I have strayed a bit from the ACLU topic of this post, so to return to it...

     

    Should every mention of god be stricken from public view...no, this is a democracy, and as my college history advisor made me research, democracy derived from the greek demoskratika, means

    kratikia-rule by and demos-the masses. At this point most of the country believes in a god, whether it is a Jewish, Islamic, Christian or Buddhist god is irrelevat. But, those views should never be forced on the rest of the minorities that do not believe in this god, or any god for that matter.

     

    At the same time, the minority cannot dictate how the masses are to run, or else our demoskratika will become a little more socialist instead (rule by a small elite group!). We need to find the happy medium, the compromise. The ACLU is forcing us to move towards that, but possibly not in the way or in the exact direction that everyone (espeically those annoying "masses")would like it to go in.

     

    So, the god fearing majority of course have the right to believe in what they want, but those beliefs should not enter politics where they will be diffused over the entire country, including

    those who do not believe in god, but are forced to have the same political leaders and rules as everyone else. Those who do not believe in a god should at the same time not be able to go and tell the god fearing ones they should not believe in god either, in the public realm. Keep it in your homes, keep it in your churches, keep it in your social groups and meetings, but

    once you go out in public, everyone and everything is then fair game. So until people stop having the urges to tell others what they should/shouldn't do, can and can't believe we will have people putting issues like this into politics.

     

    Like I just said, if its kept in a private setting, like the Boy Scouts are now (a private organization) then by all rights, yes they can keep gays, atheists, and everyone else out. But, once they start to use those public facilities, they cannot, CANNOT, complain about being yelled at and open to attack.

     

    That's the problem with being a non for profit volunteer group. If they were a true enterprising organization that was self sufficent then all these problems would go away, but alas the BSA

    is no where near that level of self sufficency.

     

    Should matters like this be legislated on, yes. We need laws in place that everyone can understand and live by in the public domain. Should the courts be free to make rulings. Yes, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the laws and how they impact our lives. Why, because look at us, a group of like minded individuals (in that we all believe in the Boy Scout program) and we can't even all agree on our own organizations actions. So yes, we need some group out there to tell us what the law means, and how it should apply to us.

     

    I have been reading this post for a while and deciding if and when I would post a response, even though I am officialy new to the forum, I have been keeping an eye on it for quite some time. But these are public forums, so scrutiny on all sides of the fence should be expected. I think I have actually discussed this issue, from multiple sides and taking into account several

    (but of course not all) points of view.

     

  18. A good centimental song to use I think is Israel K (don't ask me please to spell his last name) version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" its been used in many popular shows and movies lately and TV commercials...most notably 50 First Dates, and the episode of ER where Dr.Greene died a few years ago. Its a very moving version of the song with a Ukelele.

     

    Others songs I use in scout slide shows are:

     

    Road to Perdition Soundtrack

    Photograph by Nickelback

    Someday by Nickelback (say the word "hell" but our camp chaplin only raised an eyebrow at it)

    Time of Your Life by Greenday

    Stand by Me by Ben King

    Lean on Me

    With a Little Help from my Friends by the Beatles

    Obladi Oblada by the Beatles

     

    Just a few suggestions

  19. When my troop was a super troop of 60 plus, in our minds, if you didn't have at least 20 (or 25) go on a campout it was considered a bad turnout, and we would get a little disappointed. However, once the troop downsized, and were left with around 30 scouts, we were very happy when we had a dozen go on a campout. We've gone camping with less, and we have cancelled when there are less than 3 scouts planning on going, but that is only a rare event. It is just so much effort, and time for the adults, to go camping, and while it is benefitial and all for the boys of course, if they themselves aren't willing to put anything into the program.... Most of the time when we cancel, the boys who are going are the ones who go on all the campouts, so they are not that disappointed or devestated.

     

    I know several small units that only have 4-5 boys in the entire troop, and when they go camping, often 1-2 can't make it, so 2-3 on a campout is the norm for them. The transition for us was hard at first as leaders, to go from having so many to so few, it was disheartening, until we realized it just reflected the percentage of boys in the troop now (still roughly 45-50% of the boys camping). It was also much easier for us as adults to go on these campouts now, since there were so many less boys to "keep an eye on".

     

    The downside for going with few boys is the cost effectivness, especially if you are cabin camping in the winter with fixed costs, but the troop coffers hopefully can compensate for most of those costs if necessary.

     

    But in the long run, if you have enough boys to actually go, and they want to go, and you have enough leaders who want to go then just do it!

  20. Our troop just passed the 20 year mark about 2 years ago (I guess that would make us 22 now :)) We had 50 in 1999, and we are up to 75 now. Considering our first eagle was roungly 4-5 years into the troop's formation, that is roughly 18 years for 75 eagles (4 per year average). We actually usually have 1-2 a year, but we have had several cub scout dens over the last 7 years stay together all the way through boy scouts and make eagle together, giving us 7 or 8 in a single year, for about 3 years. That just sky rockted our numbers. Looking over our numbers in the past, I would say we have had roughly 300-400 plus boys in the troop in the past 20 years. So that would put us at somewhere around a 33 percent ratio of eagles. We have many who drop out every year, and we have shrunk in the past few years as those mega dens stopped staying together and making Eagle, but the number is holding true. We have a good program for all ages, which is what I think helps us hold our boys into the troop.

     

    Last I checked, the Koshare troop out of La Junta had several hundred eagles as of 2000, but they are a huge troop...huge.

     

    OldEagle

  21. Our troop just passed the 20 year mark about 2 years ago (I guess that would make us 22 now :)) We had 50 in 1999, and we are up to 75 now. Considering our first eagle was roungly 4-5 years into the troop's formation, that is roughly 18 years for 75 eagles (4 per year average). We actually usually have 1-2 a year, but we have had several cub scout dens over the last 7 years stay together all the way through boy scouts and make eagle together, giving us 7 or 8 in a single year, for about 3 years. That just sky rockted our numbers. Looking over our numbers in the past, I would say we have had roughly 300-400 plus boys in the troop in the past 20 years. So that would put us at somewhere around a 33 percent ratio of eagles. We have many who drop out every year, and we have shrunk in the past few years as those mega dens stopped staying together and making Eagle, but the number is holding true. We have a good program for all ages, which is what I think helps us hold our boys into the troop.

     

    Last I checked, the Koshare troop out of La Junta had several hundred eagles as of 2000, but they are a huge troop...huge.

     

    OldEagle

  22. My town, of 45,000 has 11 boy scout troops, and 8 cub scout packs inside of it. We are a moderate sized town, and most of the troops are flourishing. I would say the average is 30 scouts per troops. A few are a bit larger, a few a bit smaller. My own troop used to have 60+ boys and our "feeder" pack used to have close to 100, including tiger cubs. I have to concur with the note about professionals saying that if you don't like the troop you're in "start your own". My troop has a good program, the other troops in the town all have good programs. I know the vast majority of leaders in the other troops, and they are all good people with good scouts and good leaders (well, there are of course a few leaders left desiring some improvement, but we all have room for improvement on some level). A few years ago my troop had a few leaders who diasagreed with our way of doing things and decided to leave the troop, and take their boys with them, all within their right to do, but what the DE suggested was to start a new troop, not join another of the excellent programs in the town. Outside of our town, in the neighboring towns there are probably another 20 units all within a 20 minute drive in every direction, more once you get into the "city". The pure reason why the DE, a good friend of mine, suggested they start a new troop was because he was concerned with numbers. He was new to the job, and it was to be his first new unit. It was his baby. I personally think these leaders would have benefitted from joining a reputable unit with a different philosphy than our own time proven philosphy, but they started their own troop under the DE's urging.

     

    Did our town need another one...No. Did it help the community....No. If a town has a good scouting industry and can support another troop then they should start another troop, but not just so the DE can have a new troop.

     

    But I do think it is a universal problem that all troop's are going to be shrinking in this country over the coming years...until of course we merge with the Girl Scouts, like they have in Canada. Then I forsee a blossoming in registration and retention through 18, and beyond :)

     

    Well, that's my 2 cents, and my rant for now.

  23. This actually came up in a conversation I had with several people concerning the camp my troop use to attend for years. I came to find out that the camp, which charged between 195-225, per scout per week depending on when and how you signed up, had an operating budget for the summer of 230K (for all aspects of the summer camp program) and that they only spent 108K on summer camp related materials. In the end they made over 100K for the summer in profit. When I inquired about how that money gets spent, the professional i was talking with pulled out a pie chart and showed how all the money was spent for the council, and where it came from. Of course the left over money was used to fund not only the camp year round (an unfortunate necessity) but went into the council general operating budget. Most people I know feel the money should stay right in the camp, and whatever is left over from summer expenses and year round expenses should be used to improve the camp, since the people who paid to attend camp were under the premise that the money they were spending was being used for their child's summer camp experience, not to pay for the donuts at the scout exec's mandatory staff conference 6 months later. Its kind of funny that the boy scouts are not as concerned about improving the program for the boys, but rather improving the business end of the council instead. But of course, my 2 cents.

     

    OldEagle

  24. ASM416: Sorry to hear that you guys will be going back this year. This camp has many major problems, if its not too late...run!!!

     

    Scout9933: I hope things do work out, but fortunately the council can't sell this camp (or any of their remaining camps). In the past when they were Cash poor and land rich the council sold other properties they owned which angered many of the leaders and scouts in the council, since they sold the most popular of the camps. Now they have 3 camps left, not bad pieces of land, but from what I'm told they only kept schoellkopf because it was given to them through a loan/lease deal- continuing to this day, and so they can't actually sell it, or I'm sure they would have.

     

    I place most of the problems for the camp in the hands of the Council Leaders. They have changed camp directors several times in the past years, and the man who is camp director now seems to have a big chip on his shoulder (he was also the assistant director for the 2 years before 2005, and these are the 3 years that the trading post stock has dwindled, and the 3 years the camp has been in decline!)

     

    LisaBob- We had 1 scout go to provo as well, and you're right. From what he told us, the Provo SM did not care about the scouts too much, in fact he spent much of his time on his laptop in the sight. And our boy also told us that there were times the scouts were told they couldn't be in the site, because of having only 1 leader, since the Provo SM wanted to spend time with his friends at the waterfront.

    If that is any indication of what type of person he is, I feel really bad for people going to the camp this year, since he is their Program Director according to the council webpage!

     

    OldEagle

×
×
  • Create New...