ParkMan

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

These positions actually do exist. 

There is an ACSE of Outdoors adventures (but his primary role is oversseing the HA bases).

There is a National Director of Program. She is actually an oddity in that she was never a Professional. She was directly hired to the position. Under her are:

National Director of Cub Scouts

National Director of Scouts BSA 

National Director of Exploring. 

I believe they eliminated the Venturing/Sea Scout Director position. 

I would think this would be a great position for the right person to make very visible.  It could really go a long way towards building confidence in the hearts and minds of volunteers if the BSA was out proactively talking about these things.  However, the challenge isn't to come out and talk about all the changes the BSA wants to make - but instead to be out listening to the obstacles volunteers are facing and then working internally to resolve them.

Actually, thinking about it some more, I wonder if the leader the BSA needs out talking to people is the National Commissioner.  Instead of the CEO (Mosby), should the most visible Scouter be the National Commissioner?  Should the BSA make the National Commissioner the Chief Scout?

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I don't agree with you on the layer thing.  I consider my unit/CO to be a parallel group.  We have completely separate ownership.  BSA doesn't own us.  We are not the bottom rung on a BSA ladder.  

Agreed.  The unit is a separate legal entity from the council which in turn is a separate legal entity from national.

Here's how I think the org chart effectively looks.

I think that because national has control over the program itself, the CEO or President of the BSA can effectively be considered the "leader" of Scouting.  In this case it's not leadership in terms of ownership, but leadership of  the program itself.  In this discussion of leadership with youth, I would be comfortable distinguishing between ownership and leadership.  You don't have to own something to provide leadership.

51 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't blame them for this.  Our unit doesn't want them.  We would prefer that they stay away.  On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

I guess I'd simply say - I don't blame them for this either.

However, the leadership lesson is that leaders who want to better connect with those they lead have to want to connect.  That you don't want it is all the more a reason for them to want to hear why.  Even if it's not some trumped up photo op, but a discussion about why your unit wants nothing to do with anyone but your own unit.  

8 hours ago, yknot said:

The problems you outline are largely attributable to the inherently dysfunctional organizational structure of scouting. There is little to no accountability in the scouting hierarchy. We have at least five levels of operation -- CO, unit, district, council, and national -- and little connection between them. In a corporate structure, low level employees with an issue generally at least have an HR department. There is no such function in scouts. We have four separate tiers with their hands out for fundraising and they are each only truly interested in or accountable to their own needs -- COs, who sometimes solicit direct fundraising support from units, units, who need dues, districts and councils, who run FOS and popcorn and whatever else, and National. By design, COs and units are largely isolated and there is no conduit for requiring accountability from Councils or National. There are accountability gaps everywhere you look and I believe this is partly why we were so successfully exploited by child predators. It's no coincidence that our structure is somewhat similar to that of the Catholic Church. Before scouting became so focused on marketing (money), membership and advancement, the structure worked OK but it no longer does. 

One of the good things that could possibly come out of bankruptcy would be a more functional organizational structure. 

What I believe this leadership article is implicitly saying is that authentic leaders should work to cultivate a culture of communication and openness.  That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine.  There are many organizations with a lot more layers than that which have managed to resolve this kind of problem.  Really, just having the senior leaders of the BSA get out there and start visibly talking to unit leaders would be a good first step.  A monthly update from the CEO would be a good step.

To me, the leadership lesson in all of this is that a leader has to want to be authentic - it requires effort.  They have to make this a priority.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Pushed around by DEs and council volunteers: First, some of this is baked in the cake of any organization that consists of more than 1 level. The higher level folks never, ever "get" those who are in the level(s) below.  [...] Second, see above. DEs and council volunteers are being told: boost your numbers and funding or your district/council dies. Funding and numbers are down, all around, in general (yes, there are bright spots). No one wants to get merged. So they press what buttons need to get pressed.

This is not a universal truth and does not need to be this way.  In a fundamentally hierarchical organization, the views of the people in positions of authority are indeed influenced by the people surrounding the leader. 

This is why senior leaders need to be out regularly interacting with unit leaders.  Senior BSA leaders have to want to understand the issues in the field.  Further, senior BSA leaders have to want the unit leaders to know that they want to know the issues.   Roundtables, webinars, online meetings, you name it.  When was the last time the leaders of the BSA held a town hall answering tough questions from unit leaders?  In other corporations this kind of thing happens all the time. 

It would not be hard for the BSA to begin to remedy this.  For example - what if the BSA gave an ACSE the title of "Chief Scout" and put him/her in charge of programming.  As part of that person's job, he/she person held monthly town hall meetings around the country.  The Chief Scout fielded tough questions from unit volunteers and gave honest answers.  The Chief Scout painted the vision of the organization.  Sessions are recorded and put online for all to see.  What if that person made a statement early on that "we will not sacrifice program quality for membership."  Don't sugar coat things, be honest, genuine, and direct - in other words, be an authentic leader.  I have a hunch that volunteers would love a person like that.  

That's just one idea - I'm sure other smart people can come up with 10 more.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I just removed my latest response.

Ya know ... I wanted to assert a good framework through which we can teach leadership.  Perhaps, this channel shows we can't do that.

Maybe we stop pretending to teach leadership and just stick to knots.

 

Maybe I'm eternally an optimist, but I think that by discussing these issues we can begin to make headway in terms of understanding each other on them. 

I've learned a lot on this forum from the wide backgrounds we have on the issues we discuss here.  In fact, even in these seemingly frustrating discussions we have, I learn a lot about the wide array of perspectives on this activity we call Scouting.  I've become a better Scouter for it too.  I think this discussion on leadership is a fascinating one and am glad you started it.

40 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let's go back to the original post.

BSA's reputation for authenticity got nuked with the abuse accusations and a American population that looks at Scouting as "hokey" and anachronistic. I'll take the second part first.

Scouting as hokey and anachronistic: Scouting did not move quickly to embrace changes in American culture (homosexuals, girls, etc.) On the contrary, it fought it tooth and nail, up to the U.S. Supreme Court no less in the Dale case. Thus by the time it did pivot, it had already lost any good will that might have been generated from it. Movements on homosexuals and girls were not looked at as positive actions to advance and expand scouting. They were looked as negative reactions of an organization that was floundering to stay relevant and alive. Or, put another way, the "authentic" position for BSA would have been

1) To have adopted these changes in the 1990s as a broader commitment to the America ideals

2) To have NOT adopted these changes at all and stuck to a diminishing, "pure" scouting experience

As it is, National's moves don't look authentic. They look like excuses.

The abuse accusations: National screwed up. Whether they were 10% responsible or 90% responsible, they were responsible to some degree. Rather than owning up to it quick, the went into denial mode. And there may have been good reasons (even admitting 1% fault was a bad LEGAL strategy, but would have been a better PUBLIC RELATIONS one).

And YPT is the same. Yes it is part to ensure youth protection. But it is ALSO to protect National, Councils, COs, and units from legal liability. They will never, ever say this quiet part out loud, however.

So National lost is credibility with everyone. The traditionalists hate the changes. The non-traditionalists look at it is as National dragged kicking and screaming and not doing it out of a change of heart but as a panic move.

It took decades to build up Scouting's authenticity and a decade to end it (or two if you go back to the Dale case in 2000 and want to count it from there).

Thank you for the good history.  But, I have to wonder if we're mixing issues here.

When I started in Scouting 10 years ago, it didn't seem that the unit leader liked national any more than they do today.  Are the issues that leaders have with national really all about the membership moves?  Most of those membership issues were in a very different place when I started than they are today.

The issues I seem to hear the most fervently here have to do with what I'd call tone-deaf councils & national leadership.  That unit level Scouters think that national is continually putting membership & money ahead of program.  Decisions like the seemingly arbitrary changes to YPT rules.  The last minute hikes in fees.  That unit level Scouters feel pushed around by DEs and council volunteers. 

In short, is the issue really one of the macro membership issues or one of unit level volunteers feeling neglected and pushed around?

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But don't you know? You don't have to obey BSA rules even if you agree to them by signing up if they get in your way! Just do what you want, there's no rules other than what you/your CO wants. You don't have to "comply", "abide" and/or "conduct" yourself according to BSA rules because BSA National is bad!

You just run your scouting program the way YOU want. Who cares what National says?

/sarcasm

I'm curious if we can leverage some lessons for the Scouts from all of this.  Let's go back to the original topic of this discussion - authenticity.

I've felt for a very long time that a significant portion of the Scouting volunteers do not respect the BSA national organization nor many of the councils.   They find the decisions of the organization difficult to understand.  They believe that decisions are made that do not reflect the needs of the Scout or the units. 

Perhaps in a sense, the BSA leadership themselves are missing the point of authenticity in their own leadership style?

7 minutes ago, David CO said:

That's a no-brainer.  I will always choose my children over BSA.

Yep - I think this is true of most parents.

I also don't fault the BSA from trying to be a leader in setting this rule.  Look at how much more awareness and though this topic gets because of the high bar the BSA set.  They have created much discussion on this subject - a good thing.

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, we amend the Scout Law

Got it.

That's too simplistic.  The best leaders I know do not blindly obey every rule and directive - they balance the needs of their team or organization against what is being asked of them. 

The mark of a strong leader is that they balance the needs of the organization that they are in with the needs of the team that they lead.  They then make good decisions as a leader based on that information.  I will take a leader with these sort of critical thinking skills any day over someone who simply just blindly obeys a command. 

Let's remember that obedient is but one point in the Scout Law.  There are other places in the BSA's guiding materials talk about developing leaders. 

Quote

VISION STATEMENT

The Boy Scouts of America will prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law.

THE AIMS AND METHODS OF SCOUTING

The Scouting program has specific objectives, commonly referred to as the “Aims of Scouting.” They are character development, leadership development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. Leadership development is also one of Scoutings eight methods contributing to both good character and good citizenship.

The methods by which the aims are achieved are listed below [...]

Leadership Development – The Scouting program encourages Scouts to learn and practice leadership skills. Every Scout has the opportunity to participate in both shared and total leadership situations. Understanding the concepts of leadership and becoming a servant leader helps a Scout accept the leadership role of others and guides them towards participating citizenship and character development.

Our role as leaders in the program is to interpret these to the best of our own abilities.  I looked at these other items and recognized that I have to use some context when interpreting obedient.

40 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

you say this like it's a bad thing?

You have to put the YTP 24/7 rules into context.

A primary goal the BSA at the national level is to reduce issues of child abuse in their membership as low as possible.  With that in mind, it makes sense for the BSA to have very aggressive YPT rules.  The primary goal of most volunteers is to raise their children.  So when this goal of the BSA conflicts with the goal of parent volunteers, parents are going to react in different ways.  Again, some will side with the BSA, some will side with their children's needs.  

It stinks that this creates situations where we have to choose between the BSA and our own children, but it's reality.  In this case the BSA chose to prioritize youth protection above the needs of it's volunteer leaders.

Does it mean that it was wrong for the BSA to make this choice?  In my mind, it does not.  Given the obvious history we are all aware of, the BSA taking a very proactive approach makes sense.    Does it mean that we all suffer and struggle because of it - yes, it does.  But, in my mind the BSA made the right priority call.  It is, in a sense, being a leader here.  Regardless of the difficulty of that decision, the BSA is putting kids first.  Perhaps someday the BSA will realize that this level of protection isn't necessary and will tone it down - but that day is not today.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

A Scout is Obedient. Question the rule? Sure. But violate deliberately? Nope. It is rank hypocrisy to tell scouts they have to obey rules, but Scouters don't.

Leaders need to understand their role as team member as well. 

• A patrol leader leads a patrol. A patrol leader is also a member of the PLC which is led by the SPL.  
• A Scoutmaster leads the Assistant Scoutmasters, but also is a member of the team led by the Committee Chair
• A Troop Committee Chair leads the volunteer adults of the troop, but also is a member of the team led by the COR.

Leaders also need to understand how to balance the goals of the team they lead with the goals of the team they are on:

• A patrol leader will recognize when the patrol is burning out and have to balance that against the SPL's wish for the Troop to be ready for the morning flag ceremony at 7:00am.
• A Scoutmaster will want to purchase new tents for the troop, but recognize that the Troop Committee sees the needs to conserve funds in an effort to keep dues down.

Leaders will also need to understand how to balance external commitments with the needs of the team

• A troop is a part of the CO, but has agreed to follow certain Scouting rules per the Chartered Organization Agreement.

As a leader grows in their role, they will undoubtedly run into conflicting circumstances to deal with:

• The troop really needs new tents to keep the Scouts warm and dry in a storm, the Troop Committee has determined there is no money, and the BSA says you cannot solicit donations of new tents.  How does the Scoutmaster resolve that?

How one deals with these conflicting circumstances defines them as a leader.  Some leaders will choose to side with their team.  Some leaders will look to guidance and direction from the team they are in.  There are lots of factors that influence this.

Obey?

Myself - I cringe when I hear terms like obey.  I have never believed that my role as a leader means I simply do whatever my "leader" tells me to do.  My job as a leader is to understand all the different factors and then weigh them in the context of the goals of my team.  Often this means I have to go to my "leader" and negotiate.  That's part of my job as a leader is to figure out when I follow and when I "negotiate".  

1 minute ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I don't know how to answer these questions.  My level of self confidence almost prohibits me from answering most of these questions.  i.e. I don't have one strength must less three.

I am sitting here weighing how pissed my wife will be if I don't go and if I do cancel will  I then resign all my positions effective immediately or at least until the committee can figure out what to do.

I apologize, I went back and looked at the questions.  If they are the same ones I have, it is stated that no-one will see your answers except for you.

I get the sense you're worrying too much about these questions.   This is simply an exercise to help encourage you to think about yourself in this way.  Yes, for someone with self confidence issues (I assume you meant that you have lower self confidence), I can see why answering questions about yourself might be uncomfortable.  I would encourage you to give yourself the permission to answer these - even if you feel like the answers make you uncomfortable.  Just make a promise to yourself never to show them to anyone.  It's also really OK if your answers are 20 lines of "I'm not comfortable answering that." 

I would certainly not back out of the course, and most definitely I would not feel any reason to quit Scouting.

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

"Primary point of being a leader is to accomplish things."  ... No.  That's one characteristic of leadership.  I can get a huge amount done without anyone helping.  [...]

Being a leader is about getting people to follow you, setting objectives and having those people work with you to accomplish those goals.  

Your definition is better written than mine - but it's what I was thinking.  Let's use yours.

My core point is that authenticity is focused on how to get people to want to follow you.  Authenticity is a very important tool for a leader.  Like any tool, a person has to understand it, master it, and know when to apply it.  It's one of a number of core tools that a leader should be aware of and draw on in their role as a leader. 

I would be careful about your statement:

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

But many of us would not want to call a bully, a dictator [...] a leader. 

There are indeed times and places where you have to be a bully or a dictator as a leader.  If you look at a number of the most successful leaders in business and there are many times people would call them exactly that.  Being a leader often requires techniques chosen for that specific point in time.  Sometimes you have to push.  Part of being a leader is knowing when to use which technique. 

It's also possible to be both authentic and a dictator/bully.  I'd call that a passionate, visionary leader.  

47 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

So... if I were to not answer these 20 questions and just go.  Would that be a huge problem?

The pre-course 20 questions?

In our course, it wouldn't be a deal breaker - but then again, everyone always does it.  Why don't you want to answer them?

8 hours ago, David CO said:

I do.  We should reject the whole concept of authenticity of leadership in BSA, and issue a disclaimer, much like the television networks do.  The statements expressed are solely the views of the BSA national council, and do not reflect the opinions of your scout leaders or your local Chartered Organization.

 

I think we'd have to explore this more before we attach a disclaimer.  In my decade as a leader, I have never made a statement that I felt was something controlled by the BSA.  I also disagree with the BSA on a regular basis.  I've always felt very comfortable being able to make a distinction between the two.  Even in times when I might make a different rule (wheelbarrows) I have no problems saying "folks, I know that you can use a wheelbarrow at home, brut BSA rules prohibit it." I don't feel that makes me any less authentic as a leader.  

I know we all have different backgrounds and arrive at our roles with different perspectives.  Before I advocated for a disclaimer that assumed leaders cannot be authentic representations of themselves, I'd want to hash out more specifics of how you feel the BSA is controlling your speech and actions.

30 minutes ago, David CO said:

Maybe I'm not getting my point across.  Let me give you an example.

Last year, my school administrator wrote 2 emails and sent them out to the parents.  She sent them out from my mailing address and signed my name to them.  The parents all thought I sent out the emails.  I didn't.  I didn't even agree with the thoughts expressed in the emails.  Yet my name is on them.  This is the opposite of authenticity.

An individual leader cannot be authentic if the institution they work/volunteer for won't let them be authentic.  This is true in education, and it is true in scouting.  The use of scripted lessons and pre-approved form letters is increasing.  Teachers and scout leaders are becoming more like actors, reading a script.  We are often seen as playing a role.  The kids are aware of this.

Kids often ask me if I really believe in the things I say, or if I'm just repeating what the school/church/troop wants me to say.  They are asking me if I am authentic.  It's a good question.

 

Ohh.  I understand better now.  

Yes, I would see that it would make it harder for you to be authentic is the organization is doing things in your name and creating a false persona.  I'm fortunate that I don't work in an environment that creates that hurdle for me.  While I do from time to time have to tow the corporate line, I always try to find a way to do so that is in keeping with my own voice.

I think we must Scout in very different councils.  I always look at the rules from national as simply "the rules".  The rules don't govern too much how I relate as a person to others.  So, I really don't feel all the controlled by the BSA.  I'm able to find a way to be me and place the rules of the BSA in context.  For example, all the G2SS restrictions have changed what we can allow Scouts to do on their own, but they don't change how I relate to them.

Perhaps that would be an input of mine to this discussion of authenticity.  You have to determine your own voice in all of this.  Yes, if the school/church/troop/BSA wants you to say something, you have to find a constructive way to support that request, yet do so in a way that keeps you true to your character.  One approach for that is to simply define those things as rules vs. your decisions.  i.e.,

• "Scouts, the G2SS scouting rules require us to have two deep adult leadership on your hike this weekend, so make sure you factor that in.  Make sure you recognize that the adults are there simply in case something bad happens, so do not expect them to be in charge - this is your hike."

vs.

• "Scouts, I want you to have two deep leadership on your hike this weekend, so make sure your factor that in."  

22 hours ago, Eagledad said:

The followers Knew their limitations and wanted a leader that they could trust to get them there.

I've come to appreciate that someone's leadership ability is intrinsically linked to their own comfort in leading other people.  Many people are simply disinterested in making decisions for others.  There are many reasons for that - some easily addressed, some not.  One of the biggest factors I find in this is self-confidence.  A person who is full of self doubt and not confident in themself is less likely to be confident making decisions for others.

Yet, sometimes it's more ingrained than that.  For some, they simply enjoy the act of accomplishing tasks more than they do in leading teams.

I think this is what I've come to recognize in these sort of situations.  When you put 8 kids in a group and say - "Go", those youth who enjoy leading are going to take charge.  Those youth who enjoy being a team member are going to be team members.

I find that our role as Scouters is to give these kids the opportunity to discern what they enjoy and why they enjoy it.  Would they enjoy leading if they had the skills?  How do we orchestrate situations for the youth to develop enough self-confidence and learn enough skills for them to determine what they enjoy? 

You've hit on the limitation of these kind of analogies and examples.

This article is all about how a leader relates to those people he or she intends to lead.  Authenticity is a tool to help the leader connect with the people in their team.  Authenticity is not the primary point of being a leader.  The primary point of being a leader is to accomplish things.  Being authentic is simply a technique to help a leader accomplish things more effectively.

22 hours ago, David CO said:

The article appears to be focusing on business managers.  I am not a businessman, so I don't know much about authenticity in business management.  I am a teacher.  I can honestly tell you that things are going in the exact opposite direction in education.  Teachers are not encouraged to be authentic.  Schools are afraid of authenticity.  

Today's school curriculum is designed to teach to the test.  Every minute of instruction time is accounted for.  A classroom lesson plan must identify every teaching activity and match it up with a learning goal from the state curriculum.  The teacher is irrelevant.  The test is everything.  It doesn't matter if the teacher is authentic or not.

Regardless of what you do in life, you probably have to accomplish things.  Youth, adult, Scouter, businessman, or teacher - in all of those roles you have to accomplish things.  Though the article is written from the point of business the lessons are likely applicable to other roles.  As a person in business you have to accomplish corporate goals.  Perhaps as a teacher the task you have to accomplish is kids learning learning.  As a Scouter, it's inspiring youth to grow.

We've used the term authentic quite a bit in this topic.  In other articles it might be referred to simply by the phrase "connecting with people by being genuine".  By connecting with those you need to work with to accomplish things, you end up with a better likelihood of those people energetically working to accomplish those tasks.

22 hours ago, David CO said:

I think the same is becoming true of scouting.  Adult association is no longer considered desirable, except for that which is absolutely necessary for advancement and supervision.  Authenticity is unimportant.   Compliance is all that is needed.

In my years on this forum, I have heard many complaints about scout leaders not complying with the rules.  Usually advancement rules.  Sometimes YP rules.  I have yet to hear a single parent complain about a leader's authenticity.  They don't care about authenticity.  They just want the adults to sign their kids off on the requirements and give them their badges.

With the increase in rules in Scouting, I can see your point.  Again, being authentic isn't the goal.  The goals in Scouting are taking kids camping, helping them to grow, and yes - seeing that they earn badges.  Of course many parents couldn't care if you are authentic.  Yet, what parents do care about is how successful their kids are in Scouting - are they having fun, are they camping, are they advancing?  The more effective you are at leading the team, the more effective you will be at doing those things.  Being authentic is simply a way to more effectively connect with and in turn lead that team.

Great article and fully agree.  I liked this quote a lot:

Quote

The relative simplicity of their goals often helps. A great leader is usually trying to accomplish no more than three or four big goals at a time. He is unwavering about these goals; he doesn’t question them any more than he questions himself. That’s because the goals are usually connected in some way to one or another of the leader’s authentic selves. His pursuit of the goals, and the way he communicates them to followers, is intense—which naturally promotes the kind of self-disclosure we are talking about and educates him further about his various selves.

To me, this quote gets at the heart of one of the core problems in leadership teaching - balancing how to relate to the people you lead vs. how to set and accomplish goals.  Too often in the Scouting context - whether in youth or in adults, you find people struggle with that balance.  Trends such as:

• spending so long trying to build credibility with a team that they fail to lead the team.
• spending so much time trying to mentor the team that they don't lead the team.
• focusing so much on getting stuff done that they lose sight of the fact that they need to build credibility with the team

I am very sorry to hear the news.  My heart goes out to them both.  I was them the very best as they recover from it.

4 minutes ago, David CO said:

I can live with that...so long as we agree that BSA doesn't own the unit.

 

Right.  As I see it, and the BSA materials describe, the unit is just another program of the CO.  The BSA cannot own it any more than it can own a sunday school class.  The BSA can come along and say - stop using our materials or can prevent certain adults from being volunteers because it controls who can use the materials.  But it certainly doesn't own the unit.

In my own life, I've stopped thinking of it as the CO owns the unit.  That suggests that the unit is a separate entity from the church - it is not.

I've come to prefer the term "part of".  The unit is a part of the CO.  The unit is simply using the BSA materials as they put on their own program

@ChristianB - welcome to the forum.

It strikes me that the core problem here is one of adult leadership.

The Committee Chair should be working with the Scoutmaster to ensure that the Committee is correctly doing it's role.  Further, the Committee Chair should be setting direction for the entire adult team to ensure that all the adults are working together so that the troop runs well.  The Troop model in the BSA is that the Committee Chair is the leader of the adult team of the troop.  That the advancement and finance chairs are feuding with the Scoutmaster is the Committee Chair's responsibility to sort out.

Individual adult leaders should not be undermining the Scoutmaster on program questions.  Advancement is the purview of the Scoutmaster.  The Advancement Chair's role is to facilitate the advancement process, serve as a champion, and provide oversight of the advancement program in a way to identify when kids are getting missed.  The Advancement Chair should not be deciding how quickly anyone advances.  Again, the Committee Chair should be involved here.

You want to do this the nice guy way, have a conversation about your concerns with the Committee Chair.  Talk to him/her about the adult drama you see and enlist the CC's help in getting it cleaned up.  The pace of advancement for a couple of Scouts is not an issue that should derail a well functioning troop.

If you want to do this a bit more aggressively, go to the next Troop Committee Meeting.  At the meeting bring up that you are concerned that there is friction between the adults.  Be prepared to say that you see the advancement chair superseding the Scoutmaster on advancement and that it's a problem.  Be prepared to point out that it's leading to Scoutmaster and his kids likely to leave.  Call these folks out and stir it up.

BTW - how big is your troop.  This sounds like the kind of nonsense you see in very small troops where the adults politics are preventing the troop from growing.

2 hours ago, MattR said:

Technically, you're both right. Technically, we could ignore it. However, it is a "strongly encouraged donation" of $200/scout (plus camporee fees and, for the first time, the insurance fee has been pulled out ($75) as well, so I suppose it's more than $250). The troop, and many other units, could just say forget this nonsense but they feel obligated "to do the right thing" and help the council because times are tough. When asked what the repercussions of not paying the donation are the response was "you will make the donation."

I'd tell them to pound sand myself.

I believe that quoting a cost of $250-$300 a year per scout to fund council operations is probably pretty typical.  If you look, a council of 10,000 scouts probably does have an annual budget in the $3 million dollar range.  The problem is that councils are expected to raise most of that through donations.  The council is capped at $66, meaning that if they want to get all their funding through fees then they are limited to an annual budget of $660,000 for 10,000 scouts.  They want to raise more, then they have to do it through real fundraising and appeals to families - not coercion through mandatory donations.  Frankly, I would tell the DE that they can feel free to come and solicit donations.  Tell him that you'll even encourage families to give.  But, he's got to knock off the coercion.