ParkMan

We need to remember that the BSA is kids participating in Scouting. All these things we do - whether it is parents volunteering or professionals getting paid - are adult making it possible for kids to Scout. What was done by adults to abuse children was and always will be reprehensible. But punishing or trying to destroy the BSA has a negative impact of the kids of today. Look at how much damage these lawsuits have done to to Scouting program. Look at how many fewer kids have been able to benefit from Scouting. I think discussions of whether the BSA should or should not be puni

I've watched this issue for years and had countless discussions with countless Scouters and even a few professionals on the topic. After all this, my understanding matches that of @T2Eagle. Where the IRS was initially pushing back was on booster organizations that existed for the purpose of sending individual kids on trips - i.e., that the express purpose of the organization was to raise funds so that a kid could go on a trip. Scouting is the same, yet different. I've interpreted these letters and statues every which was and then some. In the years of doing it, I've seen exactly zero IRS

While this may be technically the way it works, it's the wrong model and it sets expectations that inherently unsustainable today. Successful packs and troops build themselves. They encourage parents to volunteer. They create camaraderie amongst volunteers so that they stay engaged. They focus on youth membership and quality of program. It's too easy in the BSA to say "I focus on program" to the detriment of adult volunteers and youth membership. In my district, the strongest units are those that focus on these aspects. The weakest are those that do not.

I don't see what eliminating the CO model will do to address any of the issues in the BSA today. To me, it's kinda putting another band-aid on a big wound. Same with popcorn, the OA, merit badge colleges. The big problems in the BSA are: attracting and retaining you members and adult volunteers national lawsuits are fundamentally destroying the image of Scouting and enthusiasm of members the cost of the organization designed to support the youth programming is too high for the value it brings Seems to me that all these sacred cows need to be looked at in this light.

If this has been presented in an open session, I assume the presentation source materials will start making their way out soon. Any ideas on when we'll start seeing this more info?

Be interesting to see if something like a national edict happens here. The basis of our federal system states it should be up to the states. Every person I know in the US right now us home and their kids off school - so I'm not sure how much more there is for the Feds to do here.

I'm sure you're right. Guess I'm just getting tired of all the drama in Scouting these days. More and more I just think of calling it a day.

I respect very much your point here. I am not looking to start a debate on the subject nor nitpick others. Some group at national has generated the document I quoted (the 03.5.18 version of the FAQ) where the BSA began to spell out guidance on the linked troop model. This group is who I'm referring to when I say "intended." In that document the BSA starts to outline a structure for how a linked troop could work - common unit committee, common opening, common closing, some joint activities. The bulk of that meeting - instruction, games, patrol time - is done by individual troop.

I'm not at all convinced that this isn't exactly how the linked troop program was intended to run. In the 03.5.18 FAQ they clearly say that a combined meeting space is OK, a combined opening and closing is OK, and the joint activities are OK. So, someone, somewhere clearly was thinking there would be some overlap. But again, even if I'm wrong - so what? I think we're taking this all too rigidly. I think we need to lighten up on this one. I don't see a grave harm to these kids because the share an SPL across the two linked troops. Much of the rest of the world has co-ed Scoutin

Thanks. Upon further reading of the doc "UPDATED-Family-Scouting-FAQ-2-11-191.pdf", I do detect a theme of separation between the boy troop and girl troop. I believe the third doc (FAQ 3-5-18) is an earlier version of the second doc (FAQ 2-11-19). None of these first two docs either directly or indirectly even mention how youth in the girl troops and boy troops should interact. I do think it's reasonable to infer that the BSA really does intend for these to be seperate troops. Yet, I find it odd that the earlier version of the FAQ was trying to start addressing how the two troops

Someone needs to show me some documentation that says a linked troop cannot operate in this manner. I sure have not seen any yet. From everything I've seen this troop is acting within the rules. Who says that two troops cannot work together and share a common SPL? This is especially true of liked troops where there are very likely to be a number of joint activities. Linked troops are a new invention of the BSA in light of situations just like this. I find it remarkably telling that the BSA struck all such language restricting how linked troops operate from their latest FAQ. Give

Never in the past have we had linked troops. This is new territory. I understand the arguments - boys mature differently than girls. Girls as SPL will discourage boys from running. We need to have single gender troops to make it fair and to support the development of the scouts. Personally I think this is coddling youth too much. Most Scouts who reach the SPL are impressive young adults. Some challenges like this are healthy. As a male I'm not ready to count my gender out here But, beyond that - what's the harm in a little innovation here. On top of that, this is not prohibit

Our troop has never been a big fan of them. I proposed them a few times - but the Scouts and adults would shrug and say - no way. Despite initially proposing them to my troop - I've come around to their thinking. Truthfully, I almost never see them around even in other troops. Gotta admit - I deep down I never really got the whole necker thing. I think I thought it was a bit of an American take on Scouting that we focused less on the necker. Interesting to me now to see that we're now being influenced by what happened at the World Jamboree. That said - I'm all for a Scout wearin

The only place I've ever seen rules about how linked troops operate was in the various FAQs provided by national. The current version is at: https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/UPDATED-Family-Scouting-FAQ-2-11-191.pdf In an earlier version of this document there were the guidelines: However, the newer version has removed all of that. My take - you are free to define linked troop how you want. If the two troops want to meet alongside each other - great. If the two troops want to share an SPL - great. If the two troops want to never meet each other - great.

Thanks for the feedback here. Much appreciated. In our case, we do collect reports ahead of time and similarly distribute those ahead of time. We then try to use the meeting to discuss issues of importance to the group. But, I struggle with what those are. Usually they end up being specific problems that the one or two people need to focus on. Those problems also could be handled outside the meeting. It's not uncommon for us to have a 60 minute or less meeting. In terms of making it useful, what kinds of district business do you discuss?

Not gonna nitpick you here. I know it's frustrating when you ask one question, but get advice on something different. You approach here seems like a fair one to me. But just some food for thought... 1. Regardless the reason for circumventing the PLC - by doing so you dis-empower the PLC. What I would encourage in a similar situation is for the SM to sit with the SPL and discuss how best to make a decision in a situation like this. Then, let the SPL go off and work with the PLC to have that decision made. It's is most probably that it would end up with the PLC deciding that a whole

I've been helping out a bit on our district committee. Our meetings are efficient enough - just not much happens there. We have some status updates, discuss an item or two. We resolve communication issues or discuss chronic problems. I was hoping this group might have some suggestions for making these meetings more impactful.

I agree with most of this. In this instance, it is good to be level headed, calm, but prepared. If you, as a unit leader, have a question - then yes, ask the camp or program staff what the policy is. Understand your ability as a leader to obtain refunds and when you have to do that by. I do think it's very important to not assume anything here. Don't assume council insurance covers this. Never assume.

Today the DE role ends up being catch-all for all kinds of tasks that are performed by a district. A DE is an advisor to the District Committee, a fundraiser, a membership organizer, a new unit organizer, a CO interface, unit service person, unit problem solver, etc... What tends to happen is that a SE or director of field service looks to a DE to "fix" all the issues in the district. In practice, this leads to expectations that a DE will do tasks not being done by or not being done well enough by volunteers. To further complicate things, there is a continuing struggle between volunt

Of all my complaints with the professional organization - I've got to admit that SE salary isn't one. Sure, we want to have people paid fairly. Yes, we are a non-profit. I'd just be happy with more clarity around the roles and responsibilities of professionals so we can end all the confusion about professionals trying to do volunteer roles.

I would encourage you to get a more deliberate in planning with your parents. My suggestion: aim for a pack camping trip with 20+ scouts attending set the location to be a nice group campground within a 45 minute drive. set the location 6 months ahead of time. start planning 6 months ahead of time. Have dedicated meetings on the camping trip 5 months out, 3 months out, and then 1 month out. These are parents meetings - involve an adult beverage or two Define roles. Be obnoxious about filling them. Stand up at pack meetings and ask parents to sign up. If some

I'm not really beating up on professionals. I do believe that volunteers can run a great program and provide resources far beyond what a professional staff could ever do economically. Yet - I see a role for some professional support in Scouting. Where I think this gets messed up is that the volunteer/professional relationship is confused.

In a nationwide program how do you define that beyond it's most general application? How do you build a program around that? To me this is a good example of the BSA's problem with programming. We have defined what it is - but not the point. Lots of steps and hoops - but why? There's substance without context or purpose.

Yes - I get your point. I don't mind a simple log of camping trips out of council, in certain high risk situations, etc. But, a TP for a change of meeting venue is ridiculous. The BSA is known to be very autocratic. Do what your boss says or else. It does lead to some of the problems we have. This is yet another reason why it's important to have strong volunteers. As a district volunteer I have no problem interacting with the professionals as colleagues - including the SE. I love hearing their ideas and welcome their contributions. They have a ton of wisdom to share. But, I don't

I love the vision! I do believe that what we lack is description of what successful venturing is and then a path to that. It could be said this is true of much of Scouting. By execs I presume you mean professionals... I groan thinking about how much we care what they think. I love my professional colleagues and value them immensely, but they are here to support the volunteer efforts. That we defer to them is fundamentally wrong. We volunteers are dropping the ball.