ParkMan

Just now, SemperParatus said:

Welcome.

My advice would be find another activity for your son.  Scouting is in a death spiral.

Scouting is done best at the unit level.  What happens in a local den and pack is one of the most important parts of Scouting to a Lion.  As a Cub Scout, I knew next to nothing of the world outside my pack.  Lawsuits, bankruptcies, councils, you name it - they are all interesting and somewhat relevant to adults, but not to most youth, and even more so not at the Cub Scout level.

I wouldn't sweat all the distractions and discussions that permeate much of the focus of these forums.

45 minutes ago, David CO said:

I have a few thoughts about this.  I have always been aware of the fact that there are many families out there who practice a greater degree of modesty in the home than what I was brought up with.  I have no problem with this.  To each their own.  I do have a problem with the idea that BSA might try to impose a YP rule regarding modesty that they would apply to scouters and their families in their own homes.  

 This idea that BSA's YP rules should apply to scouters at all times and in all places is absurd.  

I think this is the price of the BSA being a leader in youth protection.  

In today's culture being a leader in youth protection means being out ahead of the trends and changing expectations of what it means to protect youth from abuse.  You'd like to think that it will never extend to asking you to refrain from certain activities or behaviors with your own family, but then again who really knows.  

6 hours ago, qwazse said:

If a governor limited youth camping to "groups of no greater than 10 close friends from the same neighborhood, adult supervision and other groups no closer than 100 yards," how many council/units would comply?

It would depend on why the governor limited it.  If it was an arbitrary "hey, I think patrol based Scouting is the way to go", then yes, I think most everyone would summarily ignore that.  If it was based on COVID, then I think everyone would comply.  Like anything, it's a factor of why.

2 hours ago, elitts said:

I agree that a "discussion about porn" isn't related; however, I will argue (just one time) that the existence of porn IS related by virtue of it being a potential factor in YPT.  I mean, my troop can't be the only one where there has been a scout caught watching inappropriate material on a cell phone.   So when that happens, is it just a teen/tween being a standard kid or is that scout now a possible sexual abuse victim (because someone exposed them to it or allowed them to be exposed to it) that the Scoutmaster needs to report to Council and possibly the Police/Child Services?

That said, I won't belabor the point as I have no further comments to make on the issue.

It's an interesting side question for certain.  How does the evolving of abuse factor into what is reported?  Perhaps 10 years ago it would have been considered absurd to report that. Today some on the more leading edge of this topic probably would suggest you do.  10, 20 years from now - who knows?  There may be a time when it would be considered shocking that we didn't report it.  Or maybe folks will decide that this is overreach.  Your guess is as good as mine.

I suspect that today the BSA guidance would be to follow the G2SS and report what it describes.  If the BSA updates it's materials to include that, then report what they advise at that time.

@Momleader - I have a sense that short of asking your council what the specifics of their policy is, we are unlikely to know here.  I think you will find lots of good analysis of the probabilities and reasoning - but what specifically the policy in place through your council does in a situation like this is something that we are simply unlikely to know.  My own hunch is that the policy your council provides will provide coverage in almost every scenario.  I find it unlikely that the council would have a policy in place ahead of time that foresaw this scenario.  But again, it's just a wild guess on my part.

As for how do two council have such wildly different policies - it's simple - it's the makeup of each council's Executive Board that determines it.  Sounds like you've got a council with some more cautious people on the board.  The other council has some less cautious people.  What I've come to appreciate is that councils are very independent from national - they each were really making their own decisions once we got past that initial month or two.  Once the states started determining their own opening up policies, it appeared that councils really were all figuring this out.  I can see how one would think this would be coordinated by national - but national just isn't that involved in this level of decision making.

I think that if you start looking at the G2SS and trying to justify exceptions you are going to get yourself all twisted up in knots.  

I think @David CO said it well - the one-on-one rules in the G2SS will require you and your family to stop doing things that have been a normal part of life for many years - sleepovers, baby sitting, being one-on-one with your niece or nephew.  I suspect that the BSA knows this, but wanted to be show leadership in this space.  As such, they have set a very high bar.  If you are a leader in the BSA, you should live your whole life according to the rules in the G2SS.  Most will say it's to protect the BSA in lawsuits and they are probably right.  I'm a bit of an optimist and simply hope it's that the BSA got tired of having always getting blamed.  As a result, they decided to set a high bar.

I think they've carved out an exception or two out of fear of losing whole categories of people - like teachers.  But, I don't expect to see an ever increasing list of exception cases.  While the exception cases would make it easier for people to live by the G2SS, it would do so by watering down the protection it provides.  I don't tink the BSA wants to water down their rules at this point in time.

5 hours ago, Nathan1001001 said:

So should I just forget about this idea... seems like people don't really like the idea. 😕

What I've come to understand about Scouters is that we all place different priorities on the eight methods - scouting ideals, patrols, outdoors, advancement, personal growth, adult association, leadership development, and uniform.

What I've noticed with experienced Scouters is that when people start focusing on making advancement easier or better, experienced Scouters tend to start asking questions around whether the improvement to advancement is at the expense of some of the other seven methods.  For example, merit badge mills are great at helping a Scout advance, but they can negatively impact several of the other seven methods - well, except maybe uniforms.  

You've got an innovative idea that experienced Scouters will look at and question whether it will negatively impact the other methods.  I like your idea, but I think you need to be ready to explain how the other methods in Scouting will be improved or at least not be harmed by it.  For example, if your app makes it so that a Scout really doesn't need much assistance from a merit badge counselor, that is a negative impact to adult association.  Having a Scout race through the ranks but never learn how to interact with adults is not a good thing.  So, if this were my idea, I'd look at the other seven methods and honestly assess how they will benefit or otherwise by impacted by it.  I'm a bit of an optimist, so I look at your idea and see that the other methods will be find if the app is done correctly.  But, you have to be ready for those questions as they will come.

So, I would not look at the feedback here as a negative.  Instead it is representative of the feedback you will get around the country to your idea.  I would look at that as a positive and leverage it to tune your ideas.  

5 hours ago, David CO said:

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards.  They feel entitled.  I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs.  They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

That's unfortunate.  

The Scouting world has such a weird dynamic to it.  Professionals, council boards, council volunteers vs. district volunteers vs. unit volunteers.  For a movement that is all about developing leaders, we seem to know so little about how to develop leadership in adult volunteers.  It's very strange.

7 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

I am no longer in the role I was in when I attended woodbadge.  And I only completed some but not all of my ticket items - which were chosen to be appropriate to that role.    So I don't know if I'll be able to complete a ticket.  But I am still very glad I attended woodbadge.

I'd encourage you to talk with your ticket counselor.  Position changes happen all the time during Wood Badge.  I've had several people change positions while I was a ticket counselor- one even changing units.  What's important is adjusting your specific ticket items so that you can still work torwards your vision - if even in a different role

5 hours ago, elitts said:

Another factor for any non-profit board of an organization that seeks grant funding is that many (if not most) major grants want to know if all of the Board members are donors.  In some cases you aren't eligible or may receive lesser consideration if your Board donation rate isn't 100%.  Of course, this can be accomplished by requiring a minimum $1.00 donation or a minimum $1000 donation.

 

 

I'd heard this too and so just did a few minutes looking around.  This appears to be a very common, and in fact recommended practice amongst non-profits.

I find it interesting as it prepeptuates the notion of board members buying their spots on the board.  In an era where qualifications for jobs is more important than ever I find it curious that in the non-profit space there is almost a caste system that suggests board members should have to contribute financially to be on the board.  I was at least expecting that this was a topic of debate, but I didn't see much in a quick look around.

5 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Just a hypothetical question....

Is the training itself worth the time if a person didn't complete the ticket part?

Great question!

I look at the weekends of training as having three main aspects:

1. specific content taught in classes
2. building a network among other like minded Scouters and staff
3. having fun & building additional enthusiasm for Scouting

specific content taught in classes

I think this is hit or miss depending on what you know going in.  The Wood Badge material is just about entirely focused around you becoming a stronger leader in your Scouting life.  So, depending on what you know already and what your experience level is in a leadership role you may or may not pick up many new things.  I for example had been through several leadership development programs at work.  I could certainly see similarities in what I do at work vs. what I was being exposed to here.  However, I took away a lot because it was targeted at Scouting.  How to talk to parents.  How do deal with other volunteers.  etc.

I was a Scout for 5 years as a youth and a Cub Scout leader for a year before taking Wood Badge.  In the course, I also learned a lot about other parts of the program I was not familiar with - Venturing for example.

I also picked up some knowledge about more nuts and bolts stuff that I didn't know going in - planning a campfire for example.  But, I think this varies a lot depending on what you do in Scouting.

building a network among other like minded Scouters and staff

I cannot say enough how big a benefit this was for me.  I'm in a mid size council.  I met people from all over the area that I never knew before.  I went from an Asst. Cubmaster who knew people in my pack to a someone who had contacts all over the council.  That was really helpful.

Now, if you're someone who helps out around the council, then perhaps this isn't a big deal.  But if you were like me, it was a big help.

having fun & building additional enthusiasm for Scouting

This was one of my favorite parts.  In my home pack, there was always a sort of a "if we have to" feeling.  People would do things, but they were not quite rushing out to do stuff.  I found the enthusiasm for Scouting in my course was unlike anything I had in our pack.  This was a real help and encouragement to me as a volunteer.  

Disclaimer - don't skip your ticket though.  As much as I enjoyed the course, I'm even more happy that I completed my ticket.  

I've always found that photographers get a special license to take pictures during ceremonies like that.  Its important to record moments like those.  Just be purposefully and dignified when you do it and you'll be fine.

Welcome!  Hope you have a fantastic first meeting.

That's a great part of the country.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Ever hear of Price's Law??

https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/

50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work.

I hadn't seen that before, but that's exactly what I was thinking of conceptually.  Makes compete sense.

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

 

Will you move here and be our CC, please??  (with no pay  )

concur

Haha! 

I loved being Troop CC.  I told my successor that it's the single best job in Scouting.  As CC you get to see and experience everything.  You get to watch parents succeed and expand their horizons.  You get to watch a team come together and accomplish things they never realized that they could do.  You get to be the biggest cheerleader and paint the vision.  The price is that you just don't get to "do" anything.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Wholeheartedly concur...but would you elaborate on this one a bit, please?  Who abuses the DE, and how?

Lots of people abuse the DE.

1. Scout Executive and other council professionals.  I've seen countless times how our council level professionals turn to the DE for things that volunteers ought to do.  Membership, program, unit service, etc.  We see DEs working 50, 60, 70 hours a week running around doing whatever their boss tells them to do.  In the process, the DE has a tendency to just go solve the issue.  This results in weakening the district team.  If a DE is doing all the unit service, then why bother to have a commissioner staff?  If a DE is organizing the district events, then why have a committee.  

2. District Committees.  District volunteers get lazy and simply assume the DE will do it.  Make copies, pick up forms, etc.  We pay a DE something like $20-$30 an hour.  Is it worth $20 for a paid professional to go make photocopies for your training team meeting?  More importantly, what activity is the DE not doing while he is making those photcopies?

3. Units.  In the modern era a DE supports what - 30, 40, 50 or more units?  When units are leaning on the DE to pick up applications, buy things at the Scout Store, etc., that's a very expensive resource.  Again, we need DEs focused on that hard problems such as starting new units, or solving challenging unit issues, or developing district volunteers - not picking up the awards for tomorrow's pack meeting.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@ParkMan, great points in theory...but I have never, in over 40 years of Scouting, seen a program where the lion's share of the burden does not rest on just a few people begging for additional volunteer (parent) support...

And we have the best Troop in our council because of a few overburdened, yet dedicated volunteers...

In my experience this is true of lots of things - not just Scouting.  There are people on my team at work who have a significantly larger impact that most others.  I think this is just part of life - we'll always have superstars and role players.  However, the trick for the Unit Committee (and specifically the Committee Chair) needs to recognize that they are building an organization - not trying to put on a program.  Our troop was the strongest in the District too and we had an active adult committee of 30+ people.  We did that by delegating whenever possible.  Sure, there are times that people fail or don't deliver, but that's OK.  As Committee Chair, my job was to constantly develop talented volunteers.  Were we perfect - no, far from it.  But we had a robust team.  But yes, even in that model, the Scoutmaster and many of the key leaders were overworked.  But, they were overworked because they wanted to be.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

That is what paradigm shift implies, no??

I'm hesitant to embrace paradigm shifts without first seeing success.  It's easy to look at a reoccurring problem and say - this is unachievable and then change things.  Such as the case here.  Unfortuantely the history of the BSA is full of examples where we have paradigm shifts to solve an issue that never really solves the issue.  In an organization where success is driven by the strength of your team, simply paying someone to do it won't make the team stronger - it just gets you someone who can do a bunch of stuff for you.

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Why would you hang up your uniform??

If a person spends 40+ hours a week making a great program that benefits the youth in our community, why would you "muzzle the ox while he is treading the grain?"

We all know it is a good program which attracts membership.  And we all know it is quality unit leaders who ensure a good program. 

A great unit leader can have a program without help or support from the district or council (except for the registrar...and maybe a local Scout shop, but these days, with Amazon and next day delivery, that could be overcome...)

I just think this is the wrong direction for the program. 

1. To me a pack where the Cubmaster is spending 40+ hours a week on the program is not a healthy pack. Den Leaders, Assistant Cubmaster, Committee Members, etc all contribute to make a pack successful.  When you put too much on one person, the health of the pack become dependent on the ability and bandwidth of that one person.  The person leaves, the pack fails.
2. Scouting is inherently an involved parent activity.  When we start paying people, it changes the whole dynamics of the program.  It's a job at that point.  
3. The history of Scouting is volunteerism.  We keep trying to fix the fact that we don't know how to recruit volunteers by paying people.  To a large extent, I think that we've abused the DE position so much that it's created much dysfunction in community Scouting.

Instead of paying the Cubmaster, let's fix the pack so that parents can reasonably shoulder the volunteer time.

37 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

OK, expand the paradigm shift...hire a Cubmaster, too!

Hah - I've heard a number of people suggest that the future of Scouting is paid unit leadership.  Paid Cubmasters & Scoutmasters.

I think if that day happens, I'll hang up my uniform.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Agree.  As a 12+ year district volunteer, districts and councils chat all the time about how to drive membership.  But there is little special they can do.  The only success is helping units run their own membership drive.   Flyers.  Road signs.  

I largely agree with this.

As a district volunteer who has dabbled in membership from time to time, I would articulate that there are a few components to a membership campaign:

1. Individual unit recruiting - this is where I agree with you 200%.  The successful units I know are the ones who actively work on growing membership.  Why?  Because more membership brings more volunteers and energy.  Individual unit membership is where is all starts.  District/Council can encourage and train here, but that cannot force this.  
2. Quality unit programs - The most successful units I know are the ones who have strong, quality programs.  They recruit in part through reputation.  Scouts & parents talk to their friends about what a fantastic time their kid is having in Scouting.  District/Council can assist in developing leaders, assisting in resolving unit issues, and augmenting programming.  This requires a capable unit service program, a training program, and good programming to augment unit programs.
3. New Unit development - Population growth, natural unit demise, etc. results in the need for new units to start.  This can be left to happen organically.  District/Council can proactively champion this effort and will likely see better results.  This requires technical skill and knowledge in how to effectively start new units.
4. Market development - Someone needs to raise the visibility and interest in Scouting overall.  District/Councils could help here with local advertising, publicity, and co-ordinating "join Scouting" local event.  National has a big opportunity to influence through national advertising.

Is district/council needed?

• One could argue successfully that district/council is not really needed here.  I think the core of this argument is that strong units will take care of their own recruiting and develop their own quality programs.  Further, strong local programs will then result good word of mouth that results in more units.  In that model, national can play a big role through good marketing.
• One could alternatively argue successfully that district/council plays a key role in this.

To me the this question is a good one to debate, pick an approach, and then determine a solid strategy around.  The problem in my mind is that strategies where district/council is actively involved requires real, active engagement and are bandwidth intensive.  Most districts and councils don't have the ability for a bandwidth intensive membership effort like this and so whatever does happen is "best effort" and haphazard.  There are probably very few councils nationally that do this well.

Unless nationally we give up on active council/district participation like this, I would like to see technical knowledge from national about how to really do this.  Not some webinars, or a UoS training, or the occasional council conference call on membership,  but real engagement designed to deliver results.  Perhaps this could even be done in a staged 5 year plan.  i.e., if you are just starting out, here is what you can do.  if you have a team today, here's what you can do.  That kind of thing.

@Cburkhardt - best of luck with your professional activities.  I've really enjoyed the insight, thoughtfulness,  and thought provoking nature of your comments and topics.  I wish you all the best on the trail until you are able to join us again.

10 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

If that is true, National will have a role in funneling what will happen to these example councils.  Those who favor an expedited approach might hope that charters are withdrawn and new geographies are negotiated.  Those who favor a Darwinistic approach might just let a suffering movement "work it all out" at the micro level through years of bankruptcies, lawsuits and internal disputes.  What say you?

I've been looking a lot at the councils in our area and it's unclear to me that consolidation would bring much benefit.  

I fear that the primary issue we face at the council level in Scouting today is a lack of technical knowledge on how to effectively grow Scouting.   How does a council put together a membership program?  How does a district put together a membership program?  How does strong program impact membership?  How does the fee structure impact program & membership?  How does unit service impact membership?  How does one effectively strengthen units in a volunteer organization?

To me, these are the kinds of questions that need to be considered when assessing council health.  It's unclear to me that national knows how to measure and grade those.  It's unclear that national knows how to weigh the merger prospects of two councils.

The optimistic in me thinks that national does understand these concepts and that council mergers will result in stronger councils.

The pessimist in me thinks that national will simply look at the same sets of criteria that it has for 25 years that are simply not working.  What fundamentally has changed through bankruptcy that allows it to correctly assess the viability and long term prospects of two councils?

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

It has been bad since I was a DE. 

As I hope you know, I'm sorry to hear how poorly it is run and how frustrating it is for you.  Perhaps your council that might be encouraged to find new executive leadership in the coming year.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I think it varies from council to council. The only folks given a seat without a donation is the OA Lodge Chief, and when we have one, the VOA president. 

And of course the CORs, if they even know they have a seat, which in my neck of the woods they tend not to know.

Grant you some of the folks are "worker bees," but there is a minimum $ donation.

I think you're right that this is a council to council decision.  In ours, there is no minimum price.  Membership is by your ability to have an impact.

@Eagle94-A1 - I think you must be a member in a really poorly run council.  District Executives that are running around unchecked, District Committees with no power or leadership, a council board which is all about how much money you donate.  I suspect there is a pattern emerging in your council's governance.  Fortunately, this is not a universal truth across Scouting.