ParkMan

9 minutes ago, cocomax said:

News Story:

http://liherald.com/stories/girl-scouts-barred-from-valley-stream-camporee,113998

Very sad.  Local partnerships between GSUSA units & BSA units have been a great thing.   In fact, I thought it was one of the best reasons against needing to expand Scouts BSA in include girls.

The GSUSA making these kind of decisions seems like completly the wrong idea to me.  From a marketing perspective, it seems completly backwards to me.  This would seem like a great time to show strength by continuing to engage with the units in the BSA - show the world that girls don't need to join the BSA in order to have the occasional joint activities.

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

The choice is this:  Shall the BSA be substantially dissolved as an organization and its services be unavailable to future generations in order to pay abuse claims largely from the early 80s and before?  Or, should the BSA establish a set amount of funds available through a financial reorganization bankruptcy for the Bankruptcy Trustees to assess and pay those claims -- and keep needed assets to continue our programs (under our current Youth Protection program)?  I prefer the latter, because I know through personal engagement and observation that Scouting is as relevant today as ever and is quite safe for out youth under its YPT program.

It strikes me that this is the way to frame the conversation.  That the BSA is proactively looking to determine a way to both

• responsibly compensate victims of abuse
• fullfill it's Congressionally mandated responsibilty to deliver the Scouting program to the youth of the country - both today and for decades to come.

I've had some hope for a while now that Congress would get involved and create some sort of fund from which these sorts of claims would be paid.  While I acknowledge that the BSA's mistakes contributed to the crisis - those mistakes happened well before the current BSA leadership was invovled and that happened well before the current members of the organization were involved.  But, I 'm realistic to know that this won't happen.

We determined in our district that the workbook is optional, but encouraged.  We went round and round on it, but in the end no text in hte G2A showed that it had to be completed and so we deemed it optional.

On a general Eagle application form - I don't think it's terirble that there is a specific form for this - even if the fields are redundant. There are a ton of times in life that Scouts will have to complete a form.  They will also have to document successful completion of projects as well.  Given the big deal that is earning Eagle, it doesn't see unreasonable that they have a form for this.  I fully agree though that the form ought to be online so as to move it expeditiously through the approval process.  

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

https://www.nj.com/news/2019/04/50-pedophile-boy-scout-leaders-from-nj-are-about-to-be-exposed-in-bombshell-reveal-law-firm-promises.html

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Sex-Abuse-Boy-Scouts-of-America-Lawsuits-BSA-508934291.html

I'm very sad for the youth hurt by those 50 adults.  I'm also sad for the countless thousands of other youth who will be impacted because of the money and resources the BSA will now need to spend in the aftermath.  Who knows - this may even push the BSA into bankruptcy.

Around the country, forms significantly more complex than this are submitted online every day. 

The only things keeping it from happening are time and money.  Someone has to expand the Scoutbook infrastructure and build the forms to make it work.  Not an insurmountable task - but like anything it takes time.

It would seem that the philosophical question is - "who is responsible for the sexualitzation of girls bodies?"  Is it the girls who wear revealing clothes, or is it the boys who respond to the girls choice of clothing?  I imagine that most people would say - both.  It probably also leads to a more general discussion of appropriate vs. inappropriate clothing and how the determiniation of what is appropriate is made.  You could even then bring in a historical context - i.e., there was a time is was a scandal to see a woman's ankles.  Now, no-one thinks twice about it.

3 hours ago, Treflienne said:

Another questions is do we in scouting (whichever branch) want to promote "civic action"  or "servant leadership"?  Which focus do we think is more appropriate for training middle school kids?

 

I'd agree with @qwazse - you want to focus on both.  For me, I think we want to get Scouts thinking about how they make their own determination of what is right and wrong.  Once they decide right and wrong, what they do with that knowledge is the big question.  Ultimately, deciding what to do is a big part of leadership. 

We've had a few trailers over the years.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of the brands.  Looking around online, they look alot like the ones made by Haulmark.

The pack had a single axel trailer with a side door.  I really liked the side door as it allowed us access to gear without having to open and close the rear door.

The troop has two.  One is a small single axel - kind of like a small uhaul trailer  The other is a larger double axel - again with the side door.  We switch back and forth based on need.  We utilize trailers more than family cars because we also have access to a small bus.  This lets us load us the bus with Scouts & a few adults.  All gear fits in the trailer.  So, usually a trip is just the bus and a car or two.  This model has simplified our transportation coordination quite a bit.

I second the comment about having some budget to put in shelving.  For the first few years the pack trailer had no shelves.  They stored all their gear in the trailer and as a result, it was constantly a mess.  Shelves were a good upgrade.

The troop trailers don't have much organization, but we use them more for need driven carrying of equipment and gear and so that contents are constantly changing.  The troop doesn't permanently store any gear in the trailer - we utilize storage at the CO for equipment.

The pack mitigated the theft concern by first buying a wheel lock.  Later we moved the trailer to a fenced in storage area where people stored boats and trailers.  Cost us a few hundred dollars a year - but it was well worth the peace of mind. 

2 hours ago, bsaggcmom said:

Our council banned this skit a few years back citing that it glorified bullying and hazing both of which are not allowed in scouts. My guys (cubs and scouts) used to loved JC Penney and centa-peed. They can't do them anymore. It's ashame adults have to ruin kids fun. Kids think bodily functions are hilarious, too bad the up tight PC adults won't let kids be kids. We're raising a generation of hypersensitive kids, I'm scared of the thought of these soon to be adults running the world in my old and grey days. 

Ugh!

We want to live the Scout Oath & Law, but we have to trust our scouts to recognize a silly skit from reality.  If we can't trust Scouts to make that choice, then I don't think we've accomplished much as a program.  

7 minutes ago, willray said:

One of the resources-based challenges to that, is that - and maybe this is actually the crux of the matter - we have a single equipment storage location.  As a result, there is "a pile of dutch ovens".  If the girls buy additional dutch ovens for their patrols, they're just going to go into the pile, and when the boys use and return them (as they did after this last campout, with 2" of water and leftover food in them), the girls are going to be furious.

Maybe as equipment coordinator, I should just start spray-painting everything pink and blue...  I've been trying to figure out how to improve several things about our (boy's troop) use of the patrol method, and instituting some way of having distinct/protected patrol resources seems to be one of the unsolved issues that would help.  Maybe what this is trying to teach me is that having a "troop supply room" is the wrong approach.

If I were there, I'd use this as a reason to discuss resources.  "You're sharing a storage location.  You are anticipating acquiring some for the new troop.  Since you'll now have two troops sharing similar equipment in the same space, there are bound to be unintended issues.  People using the wrong gear, people returning that wrong gear in a less than clean state, etc.  You want to respect their equipment and get ahead of any issues here."  That sounds like a great premise for a meeting to me.  

11 minutes ago, willray said:

(we have one adult who is, shall we say, exceptionally dedicated to tearing the troops apart as quickly as possible, which I personally believe is completely irresponsible).

I know I'm answering this backwards.  We scouters seem to love to jump through hoops to get around dealing with difficult volunteers.  To me, I think you've got to fix this issue.  When you get cases like this, people are not on the same page and conflcits start to happen.  In the end - adults get in the way of good program.  I don't know how to solve this, but I think you've got to try.  

17 hours ago, willray said:

I'm not sure why we're thinking that way.  I'm not sure it's the wrong way to think of things, but I don't believe we've actually thought deeply about what model might actually be right, or about how we've chosen to think about this.  So - has anyone else who's in this situation of two troops under one CO, given much thought to exactly why you're tightly coordinated or not tightly coordinated, and how this plays into questions of access to resources/funds/etc?

I think that for my part, I see our girls' troop eventually heading in the direction of significant independence, and so I expect that colors my thinking regarding "their" resources vs "our" resources, but I'm not really sure I wouldn't see a reason for distinct resources even if our girls' troop was primarily a legal fiction to enable having girls patrols that could participate alongside the boys patrols.

If the troop committee of both troops is the same (as you say it i here), then the committee is going to have to figure out how to get access to resources for the girls troop.  After a little while, they may come around to the idea that sharing is inherently good.  Or, they may come around to the idea that they just need to purchase new equipment and acquire new funds.  

In our case, they have establshed a non-linked troop at our CO.  The girls troop has a different committee - but it is composed of several experienced adults from the boys troop.  The girls troop has really taken on their own sense of "we want to build up our own equipment and be self sufficient".  They want to stand on their own.  I think people are generally impressed with that ethic and as a result are willing to help out as much as possible.

46 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

Parents seem to have less time to volunteer, kids have more and more activities and entertainment options, ...

I continue to think this is the key point for the BSA.  I think recent changes will help with the first part (parent time) - families will be more invested in the BSA and willing to volunteer because they have both daughters & sons involved. 

The second (competing activities) I still see as a challenge for the BSA.  I still think that to fix that, the BSA needs to focus more on unit program quality.  Pushing for higher quality district activities, more an increased focus on unit leader development would be two good steps.

That said - I'm optomistic like @Cburkhardt.  I see a 200,000 number for girls in the BSA in Nov 2022.  I think there will be slight growth in boy numbers compared to Jan 1, 2020 - but not compared to Dec. 2018.  I could see a return for 2018 numbers for boys in 2025.

On 4/16/2019 at 8:40 PM, AltadenaCraig said:

Just to put my money where my mouth is, here are three actions which I hope National would take regarding any changes to Aims & Methods:

• Immediate notification to all scouters of the added Aim upon adoption of the bylaws by the Executive Committee (while I wouldn't expect everything the ExComm does to be so advertised, the Aims & Methods are foundational lists which are emphasized during initial training across the org - Scoutmaster Corps, Troop Committee, and Charter Org.).
• Commented by Michael Surbaugh in an end-of-year video or memo to all Scouters
• Two or three PowerPoint Slides released to every Roundtable Commissioner to be shared at Roundtable.  The slides would specify the change, the rationale behind the change, and place the change in context of Methods (which retains Leadership Development as a Method), answering "is it an Aim or a Method?"

Hi @AltadenaCraig,

I think one of the areas of disfunction we has as a movement is in how loosely connected the three layers of Scouting are to each other.  1) units 2) districts/councils 3) national.  My district team has a hard enough time communicating with the unit leaders in our district.  I can only imagine how hard it is for national people to communicate with unit leaders.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

At the national level, I imagine that people think they have more impact than they really do.  I'm sure there were meetings where they said "We need to send a message that leadership development is important.  So, we're going to expand our three aims to four."  I'm sure this was felt to be a signficant action.  But, most unit level folks I know would struggle to tell you what the aims and methods are.  "Don't bother me about Aism & Methods - I have a camping trip to get ready for."

I similarly don't recall seeing much news about this.  I think I became aware of it about a year back.  I agree fully that this was a lost opportunity to make some press for the change. If all they did was was you suggested, it would have made an impact.  

I get your point on the patrols.  The patrols might be a technically unneccessary grouping, but I think they accomplish a few practical things:

• they break up the monotony of doing everything as a large group.  There are some presentations to the group as a whole, some to a small patrol sized group.  Some people like big lectures, some small venues.  This lets you experience both
• they provide a way for there to be a more personal staff/participant interaction.  As it is now, it ensures that at least one staff member is spending time with each individual.
• it may be superficial, but it gives off a Scouting vibe.  That the group is at least pretending to follow a known Scouting structure makes it feel a little more "Scoutlike" for some.
• they help facilitate networking.  By constructing the patrols to generally consist of people who don't know each other and then keeping them very busy, it creates a lot of momentum for those adults to get to know each other.  I know that when I was a participant I was a pretty new Scouter.  I was a bit intimidated by the experience levels of my patrol mates.  It took about a day for that to wear off as we were so busy, I really forgot about any insecurities I had.  By the end of the course, we were great friends and enjoyed each other's company.  Also, because we didn't pick our own patrols, it avoided the normal ways people might group - existing friends, same district, experience level, same program, etc.  It helped me build a more diverse network on the course.
• it introduces a little levity.  Patrol totems, cheers, names, etc.  Critter identification and the Wood Badge song.  Sure, these are not really neccessary, but they can add to the fun.

So, while I see your point about needing to have the patrols really be in charge, I think that for the purpose of a training you can get benefit out of using patrols as a small group of adults who work together. 

I do think for me, as a pretty new Scouter taking Wood Badge, I was pretty open to the theatre of the course.  I didn't mind playing along and going with it.  Sure, maybe I spent two weekends playing Scout, but I had a good time.  For experienced Scouters though, I can see that perhaps it's more like fingernails on a chalkboard.  I'm not sure how to mitigate that though.

Welcome to the forum!

On 4/16/2019 at 5:08 PM, T2Eagle said:

I think it's under appropriate attire.  It's never OK to be out in public in just your underwear.

But I think the skit can still be done .  Wear very obvious underwear over top of gym shorts or a bathing suit.  Invest 5 bucks in XXXL size tighty whiteys, roll the shorts up to be completely covered by the underwear, and what you have is a costume over appropriate clothing.

This seems like the right approach to me.

What's funny about the skit is the idea that the Scout is left in just his underwear.  I'd suggest something similar to @T2Eagle.  Have the scout in a white undershirt and funny boxers.  Under that have him wearing black or skin colored gym shorts.  The Scout doesn't need to be in his underwear to make that point.

Doing that, the Scout is in appropriate attire.  Also, the Scout is now thinking about showmanship and has gotten people to think he's in his underwear without really being in his underwear. 

THanks @SeanK!

I think those are all great suggestions and worth reading for any trainer - not just those invovled with Wood Badge.

By way of full disclosure, occassionally I serve as a Wood Badge staffer.  I would share that our team really tries to do several of the things you write (staying on schedule, being interactive, being a rehearsed trainer).  Seeing that you felt the opposite in your course suggests to me that not all Wood Badge teams have those same goals.  That's really too bad and your experience shows me why it is so important.  That said - I know our team isn't perfect and we make mistakes too.  But, I think we do our best to avoid them.

Some of these things are kind of the point of the course: developing a ticket, strangers coming together to work as a patrol.  So, if you felt that these didn't work, then again, something didn't work here.  I think that's very good feedback for people to digest.

Point well taken on removing content that is unneccessary to "trained leaders" in favor of expanded learning on content that is new. 

Again - thank you for taking the time to share these.

As they say in Wood Badge - "Feedback is a gift."

59 minutes ago, elitts said:

I think if the leadership actually stated something like "Our insurance carriers will no longer cover us unless we have 2 adults at every event" I think there would be a great deal less grumbling about the change.  People understand the realities of the world, what they don't like is when you tell feed them a mishmash of inconsistencies and try and pass it off as "We think this way is better".

I fully agree that more frankness from the BSA would help.  Some of these recent decisions are pretty contrary to the principles we all understand that Scouting is about.

But, I feel like the "inconsistencies" that often get discussed are overblown.  I suspect that authors of the G2SS know that Scouters pour over the G2SS looking for loop holes for the rules. 

I think a good example is the recent topic about how a parent serving as the second adult for their child's merit badge counseling session turned into a discussion about how that rule could be extended to parents at a patrol meeting.

So, I tihnk they write less in an attempt to reduce the opportunities for loop holes.  I'm not sure it's working as they'd hope - but it's my guess.

4 hours ago, SeanK said:

I can only speak to the pilot 5 day course I took in the Fall of 2018.

What I would specially do differently is not take the course... There was nothing in the course that was worth $300 much less missing the chance to be with my family for two weekends or using a vacation day at work.  My biggest takeaways from the course are how not to run an event.

In regards to the pitch:

1) Make it clear that it is designed to teach admission and leadership/management theory in a mostly lecture format.  Outdoor skills are a thing of the past and only marginally involved.

2) Stop describing it as “the most fun you will ever have in scouting” and stressing it is a worthwhile course for every scout leader.  My negative opinion of the course may be extreme but it is not unique. 

3) The course seems to be a vestige of when secret groups were allowed in scouting, that should change people should have a clear understanding of outline and expectations before they sign up.

Thanks to the Scouters on this forum, I've come to realize that there are councils out there that do a pretty poor job in recruiting leaders to attend.  Your points are all well taken.  Wood Badge is not an outdoor skills course.  It's not a secret group with a secret curriculum.  A good Wood Badge "recruiter" should be very clear about what it is and it is not.  Slogans, arm twisting, etc. do no one any good.  A strong course will be filled with participants that know what they are there for and interested in that learning experience.

I went into the course familiar with management theory, group dynamics, and the like.  Even with that background, I got a lot out of the course.  I enjoyed learning about the application of these skills in the context of Scouting.  I enjoyed focusing on developing as a Scouting leader with other like minded people.  Like @WisconsinMomma I too enjoyed meeting the staff and learning from them.

@SeanK - if going forward you think of some more specific things that might have helped the course itself be more useful for you, I'd love to hear them.  A Wood Badge course follows a pretty defined curriculum.  But, within that, there is always room for an indviduals staff members to think about how they present the material and support the participants.  There are forum members who do serve as Wood Badge staff members, so it's always helpful to share nuggets that might help them be better staffers.

Thanks for the candor @SeanK.  You make the comment:

On 4/12/2019 at 3:51 PM, SeanK said:

For me the course did not live up to the high expectations that were set with the pitch.  If the pitch was more true to life, I may have not been as miserable as I was.  

Now that you are familiar with the course, what specifically would  you do differently?

23 hours ago, willray said:

"Give us your form at the beginning of the year, we store it in a binder that goes on every campout" may be primitive, but it actually provides a simple solution to a lot of problems.

We've been doing this for years to good success.

Every year we ask the scouts to re-up with the troop.  At this time we collect dues and new health forms (parts A&B).  We ask parents to come along at that time and check over paperwork and forms.  Forgot your health form - no problem, here's a blank one.  Not everyone shows, but over the next few weeks things trickle in.  Since we tie all this to continuing as a member in the troop, we'll get to 100%.

Part C health forms are needed mostly for summer camp, so we don't require them at that time and do let them trickle in.  But, since you have to have them to go to summer camp they seem to somehow all arrive by the time the Scouts leave the parking lot for Summer Camp.

This seems to do the trick for us and really isn't too much work.

1 hour ago, mrkstvns said:

It is not YOUR business whether somebody is fit or not fit. That is between them and their doctor. If the doctor has reviewed the demands/requirements and says "fit", then all you have to do is accept his professional opinion and you are absolved of liability. A waiver would be okay. A detailed medical history is not necessary, no matter how much you, BSA, or the busy-bodies in your troop may think it is. Pretending that there is some special "scout-like" obligation is simply nonsense. Medical info is none of your business. Nobody in the troop has a right to expect that it is.

There's really two seperate issues here.  

First - does the BSA even need anything more than a assessment of "fit to participate" or not?

Second - if the BSA requires health forms for participation - should troop adults review them?

If the BSA is going to require health forms for participation, then unit leaders ought to review them before an event.  It's not HIPAA case because the forms are provided voluntarilty and for the purpose of participation in that activity.  Really, the whole thing with privacy of health forms has more to do with people seening that that you don't expect should - your employer, you neighbors, etc.  But, having the ASM leading a trip knowing that you have a heart condition is appropriate because you provided the form for that purpose.

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Sadly, Pros sometimes won't listen, and they will downright ignore you. DE set a district Cub event 4 for the same time and place as the district camporee and IOLS training with only 4 weekds notice.. Camporee chief saw it on the calendar website, called the council office about it, and NO ONE knew about it. Asked to get it pulled from the council calendar. DE is furious because HIS event was removed. When both the camporee chief and ITOLS SM state that having that is a problem, they were ignored and told the event will go on. Camporee Chief had to make numerous last minute changes: designated parking areas, marking off an assigned campsite that was going to be surrounded by Cub Scouts, redoing the entire compass course to get to events because 1/2 the area to be used was now for the Cub Scouts, etc. Both Camporee chief and ITOLS SM quit after the weekend.

 

I hear you.  I think our DE is great.  Yet, as I've gotten to know him I've come to appreciate that for years the expectation has been on him to do all kinds of jobs that volunteers should do.  The expectation to do that has been there because it's pretty well unclear who does what at the district or council level anymore.  Further, like in many troops and packs, a small number of people end up doing it all.  It's no different in the district or council.

I think this is part of the failing of the BSA model.  National & the Council leadership should be working to strengthen the district volunteer teams and skills - not telling their DEs to fill in the gaps that volunteers are not doing or gaps that professionals think should be getting done.  

30 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

One of our ASMs worked for AT&T marketing. The ASM approached the Council Field leader and told him that he would put all the pictures of scouts in the local news paper that the field leader would give him. It was a gold mine offer. The field leader and I went to the same my church and he pulled me over to explain why he refused the ASMs kind gesture. He simply didn't want the ASM to get the recognition for the idea. I guess promotions in council are very competitive,  so he was willing to give up the many thousands of dollars of marketing to save his ego.

 I don't have much respect for BSA marketing efforts.

This simply sounds like a stupid decision by a very short sighted local professional.  

To me one of the biggest failings of the BSA in the last 40 years is the withering of the district and council volunteer teams.  We expect too much from professionals today.  A decision about Scouts in the paper ought to be made by a pretty senior volunteer.  Perhaps your ASM who works in marketing.  Isn't that the whole volunteer led, prfessionally guided idea?

Sometimes when I read these topics I feel utterly demoralized about Scouting.  The program has changed, patrol method is dead, etc.

I'll be the first to grant that the BSA has made a slew of more restrictive YPT changes.  Yes - they protect the Scouts, volunteers, and even the BSA from injury and lawsuits:

• End of youth activities without adult supervision
• More and more restrictions on what activities units can do.  (i.e. pionering structure rules)

I'll grant that the BSA has made changes to membership and the OA to adapt to changes in cultural norms.

• Gender identiciation of members
• End of Native American ceremonies in the OA
• Increasing guidance in support of politically correct speech

Further, I'll grant that the BSA had taken steps to broaden the program and make it more attractive to more youth

• Addition of girls
• Addition of Lions
• Addition of STEM activities
• Various requirements changes

Yes - I fully acknowledge that the combined effect of all of this makes it more difficult to run a program like many of us experienced as a youth.  However, I don't think any of these set out to reduce the BSA program we knew from our childhood. They are simply individual decisions made by national BSA leaders.  They certainly force us to be more creative in our programming.  But, it's far from impossible.  I'd dare say it's not even that difficult to run a traditional program.

Today, our pack, troop for boys, troop for girls, and crew all run very traditional BSA style programs and have no issues doing so.  We do this because we have a clear vision of what we're trying to be.  We don't absorb the latest BSA marketing release and say - "scrap our outdoor program and lets do STEM."  We know our program and leverage each of these new BSA ideas and try to figure out how best to work with them.  Would Scouting be better off if someone in National was making this clearer?  Without doubt.  I also tihnk it's important for us as volunteers to continue to put pressure on national to be smarter in some of these changes.  But, we are far from a case where National rules are preventing us from doing what we do.  If I look around our district, I see our other strong units doing the same thing.

So, I'm not saying any of these observations are wrong.  But, I just think that we as exerpienced volunteers need to put them in context.