ParkMan

4 hours ago, askyourspl said:

And what if the other 50 kids in the troop want to know why they now have to call Johnny by the name of Sally?

The answer is simple.  Because Johnny asked them to.  The message to the Scouts isn't about gender identity.  The message is about supporting their friend and fellow Scout.

Respectfully - I think many are overthinking this.  This is simply a question about how do we as Scouters support youth who are going through their own struggles about who they are as young adults.  For this young person it was gender identity, but it could just as easily have been a number of others things.  

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

So we are on the verge of debating whether or not to call the parents. This is exactly why I am against the BSA accepting transgender and gay youth. Volunteers now feel licensed and privileged to encourage youth toward a lifestyle that may only be a phase or a mental health condition, and possibly without the parents knowledge. That is child abuse as far as I’m concerned, and at the very least, not friendly.

A side note: We had behavior concerns with a 12 year old scout, so we called the parents to inform them of the behavior, and ask for their help dealing with the it. Our SM at the time explained that that their son had been displaying the behavior for two months. Against the advice of the previous SM, the new SM was trying to deal with the behavior without including the parents because he didn’t want the scout to get in trouble. The parents left meeting without saying much, but the CC got a call from their lawyer that night threatening litigation. They didn’t sue, but the reason is another sad story for the scout. 

I taught in the SM courses to Always, Always Always tell the parents everything. Not because they might sue, but because they are the parents and have the right to know. 

Barry

Yes - calling the parents is a perfectly fine thing to do.  A Scouter should never feel he is keeping a secret from a parent.  

These kids have a very emotionally tough path they are on.  Just like we would with any Scout on a tough personal trail, we support them.

If a Scout comes to us and says he is neither girl nor boy and wants to be called by a new name, then I think as a Scouter, you'd don't miss a beat or hesitate and simply say "great, then we'll call you by that name."

8 hours ago, shortridge said:

That means nearly half will be leaving Cubs in the next two years and expecting to transition to a Scouts BSA troop. We’ve got to have the infrastructure ready, or they’re going to vanish.

From what I hear near me, there will be plenty of troops willing to start paper units for girls.  If anything, I suspect there will be more interested troops than girls.

8 hours ago, gblotter said:

No doubt there are plenty of agitators and activists who would agree. However, open defiance and boastful disobedience is definitely not how I define good leadership in Scouting.

Some Scouters on this forum are quite particular about following every guideline and regulation issued by BSA. This scrutiny and hair-splitting can sometimes reach levels of absurdity (e.g. to wear a neckerchief over the collar or under the collar). Then I read threads like this where other Scouters brag about breaking fundamental rules. Such a fascinating discussion.

 

In truth, it doesn't matter to me. I am an LDS Scouter, and our troop of 30 Scouts will be dissolved at the end of 2019. I'll be continuing along straight ahead as BSA takes a left turn. I'm not surprised that BSA's recent changes are still not enough to satisfy the detractors and dissenters. I don't expect they will ever be satisfied. I have accepted that this is no longer the Scouting program that captured my heart and imagination as a youth. Do what you want with it. The bumblers and liars at BSA National have made quite a mess of things in my view. I'm the last person who will be running to their defense at this point, so defy, disobey, and dissent all you like.

Thanks for the reply.  I appreciate it.

Let me bring this back to the topic of preparing for girls in Scouting.  I know we're going to have troops that will look to do things their own way in regards to membership rules.  My point continues to be that I'd rather see troops be upfront and organized about pushing the boundaries breaking the rules.  For example, I'd rather see a troop be upfront and try to go co-ed than to simply skirt the rules by having a paper troop for girls.

That's not to say that I think troops should be rude or openly hostile towards the council and national leadership.  I believe that as adult leaders, how we conduct ourselves when we disagree is as valuable lesson for the Scouts in our troops.  For example, the Scoutmaster of our troop, and several of the ASMs, are openly critical and hostile towards council decisions and leadership.  Their actions bother me immensely.  I would much rather see adults who disagree, do so openly and professionally, than simply criticize but still follow the rules. 

This has come up on our troop.  The Scoutmaster keeps saying "if girls want to join, we'll just create a fake troop and let them join."  I think that's wrong.  If we really intend to run a co-ed troop, then by golly, let's be honest we're running a co-ed troop.  if the DE stops by and says "no", then we say thank you and register the Scouts anyways.  If the council still says no, then OK, we create a paper troop, but we be upfront with everyone that this is exactly what we're doing.  At the end of thy day, organization in Scouting is an inverted pyramid.  The council and national are here to provide the program to the units so we can bring Scouting to youth.

I'm fine with extending this concept to other issues in Scouting (as long as safety is not compromised) - but since that's not the topic of the thread, I'll leave that comment there.

14 hours ago, gblotter said:

From a different forum thread, a Scout has been denied Eagle by BSA National because he missed the age deadline by two months. There has been community outcry and petitions over this.

See https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/greenburgh/2018/08/15/boy-scouts-no-eagle-rank-greenburghs-hari-channagiri/996348002/

So if the CO,  CC, and SM have a thoughtful organized dissent with BSA National over this issue, I guess it's ok for them to just go purchase some Eagle badges on eBay and award them to the boy anyway, right? We are justified in disobeying BSA National (over any issue I suppose), so long as we are thoughtful and organized in our defiance, right?

Sure.  I've decided that's perfectly fine for them to have thoguhtful, organized, dissent.  I'd much rather have some people breaking BSA rules in a safe, organized way.  What I'm suggesting is really not different from groups all over the country who organize protests and directly lobby people in positions of authority.   

Let's be realistic too.  This troop publicly pushing the edge is way more likely to result in some sort of change than a strongly worded letter to you SE or national.  It's great to say - "you should make your case through official channels."  But remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Finally - why do you really care if someone disobey's national.  I don't report to BSA national and other than accepting my $25 and registration, they're not in a position of authority over me.  Yes, I think that we should try to follow the program as best we can.  Yes, the health and safety guidelines in the G2SS provide me some guidance and cover in case something happens.  But, if we have a specific conscientious objection, we should make that objection heard, known, and seen.  Isn't that part of being a good leader?  If the BSA knows what this troop is doing and looks the other way, that's on national.

So, I'm reminded that no matter what the deadline, there will always be people who push it.  If national said "you can finish you tenure as an adult". Someone will start their 6 months of tenure the day after their 18th birthday.  There would then be an article about the great Scout who had to complete his tenure as an adult, but was denied the rank.  If you keep saying "we'll make an exception", then it will never end.

It stinks, but it's reality.

13 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Well if he learned anything in Scouting, maybe it will be to follow rules and meet deadlines. This learning experience should prepare him for RPI and an engineering career.

My $0.02

I went to an engeering school like RPI.  I am an engineer today.  

There is a lot if truth to this.

10 hours ago, SSScout said:

It sounds like your Pack and Den are active, involved,  "For the Cubs".   That is as it should be.

But the Cub Den should be the "Gang" the kid (be they boy or girl) wants to hang out with.   Camping is great, gets the kid ready for Boy Scouts, but there should be other stuff for the Cub too. 

Go to the zoo, go to the museum, the Police Station, the dad's work site,  that model Railroad, camp out on a ship (Baltimore Harbor has this),  visit a County Maintenance Garage,  the State Environmental Protection Agency Lab,  a newspaper printing plant,  the Bus Transit Garage,  anywhere that is DIFFERENT than school.   Organize a softball league among the area Cub Packs, go to a minor league game,  pro soccer game (call for "Scout Discounts"),  University Astronomy Observatory or planetarium. The Pleides meteor shower came by this past weekend, given a dark clear sky, look for those opportunities to lay on the ground and just WATCH.    

MiF, KiS…..

Yes - this.  Scouting is about adventure.  It's not a arts and crafts club.  Sure, some are needed to support the adventure, but they don't replace it.

My son's bear den leader was the grandfather of one of the boys.  He held the program to a really high standard.  Not in terms of expectation from the boys, but in terms of really digging into the adventure.  I always remember how he taught the boys about knife safety.  It took us 3 meetings each about 90 minutes.  He brought in every knife imaginable.  He showed the boys about knives meant for cleaning deer, knives meant for breaking bones in animals, knives meant for surgery.  We had a whole meeting just on how to sharpen a knife and all the different kinds of sharpening stones.  The other bear den in our pack spent one meeting and spent it all whittling soap.

We had a pack camping trip.  The den leader spent weeks going over how to camp cook.  My son, who hadn't cooked in his life LOVED it.  When we got to the camping trip, my son's den was cooking their own meals.  The other den - I think the boys might have flipped pancakes.

Crafts - why would we do that? There were only 25 den meetings and a lot to cover.

I relate tbe experience because he taught me that:

1) time is precious

2) there is wonder all around us.  We just have to embrace it.

My recommendation: instead of stepping back, embrace the wonder.  Spend 3 weeks teaching knife safety.   

Hi @Saltface & @walk in the woods,

Thanks for the thoughts.  I do get your points here.

My personal feelings on the issue don't impact my perspective here.  Truth be told, I really dislike it when Scout leaders freelance on the rules in Scouting.  The Scoutmaster of my son's troop does that too much for my liking.  In fact, I'm stepping down as CC because I'm just tired of fighting with Scouters who want to apply only the rules that suit their needs.  

Yet, I see a place for organized dissent.  I get the point that Scouts should follow rules, and I really do agree.  But, as long as it's done safely, I see a valid role for adults to advocate for causes that are important to their communities.  I saw in the earlier posts such an organized dissent.  

We can certainly disagree on whether it's appropriate for a troop to openly lobby for a rules change by openly challenging the BSA.  I respect your perspectives here.  All the best.
 

7 hours ago, qwazse said:

@ParkMan, hope my "like " bandages your perplexity over a down-vote. Frankly, I appreciate the occasional "-1". I read this thing to understand people whose ideas differ from mine. If I want a bubble, I go to council venturing committees.

I think you captured the sense of what's happened over the past few years. We've heard about troops going rogue over a number of issues. Folks like me (who care about the promise of scouting being delivered to girls ... not about laser tag), talked to tag-along girls and leaders who sanctioned them, and GS/USA moms who created close collaborations with BSA leaders to make fun things happen. Finding mostly smiles (and not white-washing potential downsides), we leaned heavily on the leadership to find a path. We didn't do that because we thought it would help our own units. We did it because the young women in those rogue troops appeared to be first class scouts (concept, not patch) and worthy of recognition as such.

Thanks @qwazse!  I appreciate the words and encouragement.

In our Cub Scout pack we did something similar.  As a result, one of the largest GSUSA troops in our area grew out of that.  My daughter's first experience in Girl Scouting was in that troop.  They really were a separate GSUSA troop and BSA pack.   However, it reinforced for me that kids are kids. 

Thank you!

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

It's easy to agree with the actions when you agree with the cause.

My cause is overturning the ridiculously stupid rules in the G2SS about squirt guns, laser tag, and paintball, because my scouts are fully mature enough to understand the difference between a firearm and a toy, even if BSA National isn't.  My CO and parents are fully onboard with my unit going to laser tag in full uniform and tells the council where to put their stupid rules.  You'd support it because the position is well thought out, it's a faithful deployment of the program (e.g. building patrol esprit de corps), and my CO/parents are onboard?

I'm going to gather you really don't think Laser Tag, squirt guns, and paintball is the issue, but over regulation of youth.  

Then yes, send a letter to your DE, SE, and national telling them that the rules in the G2SS are wrong and you are planning a Laser Tag, squirt gun, and paintball event.  Feel free to invite other troops and units to attend. Tell your parents why you think the G2SS is wrong and that you are planning this event in open defiance of it.  Explain to your CO about your cause and added liability they may assume and get their support for it.

So yes, if you want to really do that, then do it.  That's the basis of my agreement above - this unit is thought out, organized about their actions, and seemingly very open about it.  If there are consequences the BSA wants to pursue, they will bear them.

. Not sure how I get a downvote for that.

As I said - seemed like the troop was making a thought out attempt to advocate for their cause.  It's not a bunch of folks just winging it.  Further, they did it in full visibility to the participants and council.  You or I may not agree with their cause- but if someone is going to practice the Scout version of civil disobedience, this seems the way to do it.

Just my .02

2 hours ago, WRW_57 said:

I think the horn and axe display may have been left out due to weather, and not a formal decision. There was plenty of WB traditions and formality, but the focus was the learning and how to understand the moving parts inside and outside a unit.

No patrol patches, no bead thingies for PLs, no stuffed animals, just patrol flags & yells,  & Tr1 neckerchiefs. Some jokers took our patrol flag and hid it ...after their WB SM conference I believe they regretted doing it. My patrol got to laugh twice on that one.

No talk of geeking out with fellow critters after the course, just how to be more effective scouters when we returned.

The NYLT-youth lead the teamwork games at Camp Rocky Mountain, that each WB patrol participated in.

The absence of camping as a patrol was not missed by anyone. Some patrols had enough friction without having to tent together.

My patrol  consisted of a disaster-response  mgr (ASM), real estate consultant (SM), professional musician (DistCampChair), shipyard quality inspector (ACM), and a NASA flight controller for the ISS (CM). We skipped all the BS and went straight to "norming", got our stuff done efficiently, and had time plenty for laughs.

As taught, the course was about the youth, not me.

Thanks - sounds like a fantastic course.  I enjoyed mine, but it does make me wish I could attend such a high caliber course!

2 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes. Mac's solution not only replaces the CC, it also usurps the authority of the COR to choose and appoint the CC. I would not recommend doing that.

I agree.  Trying to force the COR isn't a winning strategy.

If it's that bad, I'd do:

- find adults to volunteer to take on committee roles - advancement chair, activities chair, membership chair, etc.  Get them to officially take those roles.

- once they have those roles, have them meet monthly with the CC.  If the CC doesn't call a meeting, just have them do their job anyways.

A committee meeting is really just a place for committee members to provide reports and status.   If you don't have a meeting these folks can still do their jobs.

Must be 9,995 of the outside my district.

Of course, that's 200 per state - so maybe that matches what I'm seeing.

22 hours ago, oldbuzzard said:

Our chartering church has experience fighting with National. Our home family church is the same denomination. We have had gay/trans leaders and scouts forever. We opted out of the gay ban and were a major force pushing our council to also opt out of the gay ban. For that I am grateful. My wife's church in NH just dropped their BSA charter. Our early 2000's outdoorsy church in Seattle had no scouts since 2 of our 4 ministers would be banned from contact with scouts for being gay. I am glad some liberal churches pushed through that culture war to allow a more inclusive movement..

But none of the CA or PNW councils chose to defy national, while Northern Star did.

I suppose that could be a concern. But being a Scouting family, I can feel qualified to judge these things. I'm not making any troop decisions but I can recognize traditional scouting when I see it. Would I have made the same decisions...maybe... probably. But I can see YPT is being followed. We have emeritus SMs being written up in Scouting mag. We have camp volunteers in their 50th year at camp. When our younger 11-13yo scouts were planning their BWCA trip this year, we had another emeritus spry fit looking SM come in to talk about  canoe trips and he started his talk out talking to the the younger scouts and the Webelos who we  visiting by saying "I was sitting right where you were, I joined this troop as a Cub Scout in 1947..." While he went on to talk about staffing the Region X canoe base based solely on his troop canoeing experience, you could see the kids slowly doing the math and having their jaws drop. 

Maybe our troop is pushing things too much, but in 6 months it won't matter, and the question was what is your troop doing to prepare for coed Scouts BSA. That's what we're doing.

I'm generally pretty opposed to troops freelancing on the rules.  There are too many troops who decide to ignore key program rules because they are confident they know better.  I.e. "patrols? Nah, we don't need those."

This seems to be different to me.  What I see here is a faithful (I hope) deployment of the program with a reasoned exception for the inclusion of girls - which is coming anyways.  It is troops like this that will help push national in the direction of co-ed troops.

Someone has to push the issue.  Sounds like this is the kind of place to do it.  They may succeed or they may fail- but I'm okay that they are trying.

20 minutes ago, Ranman328 said:

I do believe this is a case of not wanting the Troop there any longer.  I spoke to a friend that was a member of the church and they said there are lots of problems with the church now from the top down.  We shouldn't have a problem finding a home.  All the Schools in the area are free of charge so that is an option.  We have had a relationship with the church for many years and provided a ton of Service Hours to them as well.  It is sad for it to end this way.

Maybe.

I think the troop needs to be talking with the institutional head of the church- the pastor.  You might want the church to say - Scouting is good, please meet here all you want.  But, that's a pretty big ask.  The church pays for the facilities and the utilities.  It is supported by the donations of its members and what it can augment.

If encourage the troop to think about the value it brings to the church beyond free labor - such as providing programming to the churches members or bringing new members to the church.  That's a conversation for the pastor - not the finance chair.

Good luck!

There's no interest yet in our area.

We've discussed it as an adult team and are supportive of a linked troop.  We're just set an expectation that we need a few core adults as well as girls who are interested to materialize.  But, when that happens we'll do it.

15 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

Nobody is really talking about it here. Yea everybody knows it's happening, but it's really the last thing on CO's priority list right now.

We are all trying to get ready for the full roll out of Family Scouting first. 

Just curious what you mean here.  What are you doing to get ready for family scouting?  

Thanks!

8 hours ago, Eagledad said:

These things don't happen in a bubble. You read one post and assume the one scout is the victim and the adult leaders are the bad actors. But just as in my example, these things grow over time to a point of forcing hard choices to be made. Instead of assuming the scout was being forced against his will, maybe you should assume the troop gave in A LOT. Then ask questions to fill in the blanks.

You and I clearly have different opinion of when adult leaders should step in. My boy run philosophy is to let situations force choices before the adults get involved, if they even need to get involved at all. Maturity grows from the application of humility when confronting the right and wrong of our choices.

In both examples, the parents are the main characters because they are taking the lead in determining what their sons would get out of the program. The troop is the victim by appeasing to a family that doesn't like the program. The adult leaders acted nobly giving the parent time to make their a choice.  

Barry

Hi @Eagledad,

Not quite.  I'm a huge fan of boys being in charge.  I think adults should generally stay out of the way.  

I think you misunderstand my motivation here.  I'm not trying to blame anyone.  I'm simply suggesting that there could very well be another way of looking at this situation.  Some of the earlier comments in the thread led me to think that there's a perception among the troop adults that this is a binary issue.

Cheers!

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Silly, I agree. But this situation actually happened in our troop. Twin boys who weren't enjoying the campout and they were making life difficult for the rest of the patrol. The patrol said if they didn't like it there, move in with dad. They did, and dad allowed it. Next day the twins wanted something different than what the patrol was cooking, so dad took them to McDonalds. 

It went downhill from there and that was the twins last campout with our troop. Their choice.

Compromises depend on the programs. Sounds like the troop compromised a lot. Eventually the troop needed the family to make a choice for Boy Scouting, or whatever scouting they wanted. They made their choice.

Choosing to leave a troop program is not a bad thing. We had a scout with mental disabilities leave his tent and walk out of camp on a 35 degree rainy night wearing just his underwear. We had made many compromises for this scout for about a year, but all agreed that OUR program was not for this young man. His parent made a choice, a good choice.

You shouldn't have said the comment about forcing the scout, it wasn't fair to the troop that has been compromising. Scouting is not for every family. 

Barry

I agree that there has to be limits to compromise.  I see a difference between acquiescing to the first challenge and learning from a pattern of behavior.  A patrol getting frustrated was some scouts and telling them to go sleep with their dad is different than a new scout repeatedly sneaking out to sleep with his dad.  It's our job as adult leaders to make those sort of calls.

I'm not here to second guess the troop leaders.  They know the details of the situation much better than I do.

Sorry if it's taken the wrong way.  Perhaps the leaders don't see it as forcing the scout, but at some point, repeatedly putting the Scout in the position where he feels his only recourse is to sneak out seems a bit strong to me.  Maybe once of twice - sure.  But 7 trips and two summer camps?

I do get that folks guard the quality of their program.  I tend to think about the long term in these kind of situations.  Is it really worth making a big deal over this situation when it will almost certainly resolve itself over time.  I cannot imagine that when this scout gets to 15 or 16 he'll really want to share a tent with dad. In the end, whether some kid tents with his dad for a year or two is nothing more than a footnote is a Scouts career.

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

This suggestion won't work in our Patrol Method backpacking style troop. But I can see it in the new Family Method Program. Maybe a few kinks have to be worked out like sleeping in the same tent with Cub Scout sister and mom, but I'm sure it can be figured out some how. Does the scout really even need to be in a patrol? He can eat with the parents. Maybe hit McDonalds before assembly. The new BSA really opens up possibilities. 

Barry

Now you're getting silly.  I'm not advocating family camping.  I'm just saying sometimes you have to compromise. 

6 hours ago, shortridge said:

The benefit is called Scouting. Scouting isn’t done by camping with one’s parents or family.

I'm not looking to have a debate on the merits of camping and parental involvement.  Of course camping with other Scouts is preferred.

My point is simply that Scouting, like everything else with raising kids, is sometimes messy and doesn't fit our desired structure.  We don't want to throw out our ideals at the first challenge, but sometimes you have to compromise for the longer term payoff.

When I was a Scout, we attended a Camporee.  There was a patrol competition involving splitting wood.  I'd never used an axe in my life.  The Scoutmaster insisted that I do it.  Said it would be good for me.  It was awful.  I was embarrassed and mortified because I had no idea what I was doing.  I never competed in a patrol competition again.

5 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I know the requirements do not state anything about parents on a camp out.  His mom is arguing that as to why he should be allowed to advance to First Class. But the Scout in question has not spent one night in a tent he has pitched. He will be with his patrol, set up tents, or survival shelters, with them, and then sneak off. Only one night did he sleep in a shelter he helped build with his patrol. Dad stayed outside the shelter until he fell asleep that night. Then second night he snuck into the parents tent. Since he has not slept in a tent he pitched, he should not even be Tenderfoot, let alone Second Class.  

And we have one Scout with a documented medical condition who spent the first year camping with dad. That Scout and his patrol mates old set up dad's tent so that the challenged scout could " Sleep in a tent you have helped pitch." Challenged Scout has not had any issues of late, and is sleeping with the patrol with some precautions.

Then have him setup the tent that he shares with his dad.  Problem solved.

Just seems to me that trying to force him to tent with other Scouts isn't working and is only making everyone frustrated.