ParkMan

5 hours ago, jsychk said:

However, I respectfully disagree with the sexist part because the quality of a strong male leader is very different from the same of a strong female leader. That's a fact. Let me put it that way. Men & women are never equal, ever. We are definitely wired differently. Men & women process different unique abilities. Just like my situation, when problems happen, I want to talk about it, vent and be heard. That's the emotion part of a woman. However, the men's problem-solving advice is more like "follow the procedure, get over & move on." Period.
 

Respectfully - this is simply not true.

Any differences that we bring to Scouting because of gender are far outweighed by differences in upbringing, family influence, schooling, and career.  Some of the absolute toughest, practical, most no-nonsense leaders I know are women.  

I don't doubt that you mean no disrespect to either gender by your comments.  I am not looking to turn this into a political correctness discussion either.  If it had not come up in the topic, I probably would have not commented myself.  But, since it has come up, I would suggest that as adult leaders in a development program now open to both genders, we really should think twice before ever inserting "male" or "female" into descriptive phrases like "a strong male leader". 

When kids hear statements like "the den is lacking a strong male leader", they remember the word "male".  You telegraph to female kids that there are things they need males to help with.  You telegraph to male kids that it's OK to not fully respect a female leader.  I know this isn't what you intend, but it's what happens.

Anyways - please pardon the soapbox comments here.  I'm not looking to lecture - you came here with a problem and we're here to help out  Again, with these comments out there, I thought it important that the other side be presented.

11 hours ago, FireStone said:

More to the point, I'm again absolutely frustrated with the notion that the BSA is still operating in the same way it was years ago. We've come so far and done so much when it comes to YPT. Our YPT program is far ahead of what many other youth organizations, sports programs, etc., have in place. And yet the public perception is that we're a haven for pedophiles. 

The BSA may have to face these lawsuits and possibly settle them or pay out when they lose. But the thing that baffles me is why they are also losing the PR battle in this when it comes to the modern day BSA and current YP. Why is it not even mentioned in these articles? Where are the BSA representatives to respond to comments when asked for these articles, the people who can and should point to this extensive training program and vetting process that is exactly what victims like the gentleman quoted above are asking for? 

If the BSA goes under, it's not because the BSA loses a lawsuit, it's because they lost the PR battle of public perception and failed to inform the public about what we're doing now to protect scouts. 

Fully concur.  There are countless examples of more proactive marketing than the BSA does.  It's like we're not even trying.

If I were the BSA leadership, I'd be looking for every opportunity to get  our message out there.  We need to be making the case that for youth protection, there's no better champion than the BSA.

I'd even consider taking 75% of the money we spend on executive salaries and hiring one really good PR person.  Pay that person 2 million dollars a year if you have to - but we've got to change the conversation here.

HI @jsychk

I'd recommend that someone just have an honest conversation with the guy - sort of like what you've done here. 

"Hi Bob, It's been great having your son in the pack.  He's an awesome kid.  I noticed that you put him in for 17 adventure badges last month.  As you can imagine that many badges all at once was unusual and raised the question of if he really earned them.  If he did, no problem - but you can imagine how this seems like something we should check on.  What do you think?"

Then let the guy explain.  If he's sticking to his story - then move on.  Part of the risk you take with letting parents enter awards is that this happens.  It's not worth blowing things up over some Webelos adventure loops.  Of course, if others start doing the same, then you've got to rethink the practice of parents entering them.

For what it's worth.  I get the impression that people are a little too busy in your pack and it would probably benefit to bring in some more parent help.  CC in the Middle East, CM with demanding job.  Truthfully it doesn't matter if these people have 0 assistants or 10 assistants as long as stuff gets done.  Conversely, it's fine for the person in the role to be busy - but you've got to offload smaller tasks for them.  The CC is responsible for making sure that recharter gets done, but doesn't have to do it themself.  Same with many CM tasks.  These senior people absolutely have to provide the leadership - but the manpower can be done by others.

21 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Ideally this is how it should work.  But here are the usual results, from my personal experience:

1. Pro shouts down volunteer.  Sometimes in public.

2.  It isn't always the DE.  It can be another pro throwing their weight around, sometimes the SE.

3.  The district chair is often no help because a) they are a name on a spreadsheet and not a real chair b) they meekly go along with the pro and won't back the volunteer, usually because they aspire to be a future WB CD, have an award pending, etc.) or c) they're completely in cahoots with the professional staff and won't back their district volunteer staff.

As mentioned earlier, if you are in a council that functions soundly, please count your lucky charms.  I've been in six councils and some of them were absolute chaos for volunteers.

I don't mean to make light of it.

But, taking a step back to where this started.  I think this is a place where the CSE could choose to get involved.   We all hear these horror stories of bad councils.  Frankly, these are the kinds of problems that are killing Scouting.  The CSE could by all means start an effort to fix the professional/volunteer chaos.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am very glad to hear your council does things like it is suppose to do. Sadly not every SE does that. I can tell you in my some councils I have been in, pros will ignore volunteers in charge of activities, make additional demands, and even overruling volunteers who are in charge of events to the point that they take over. It has gotten to the point the point that some longtime volunteers no longer have anything to do with the council because of the professionals.

I think many SEs are clearly in over their heads.  

I think we've had this discussion before.  But, if a professional overrules a volunteer and the volunteer has the ability to do so, the volunteer should nicely tell the professional to back off.  That's Bob for the input, but I've got this.  We've met for months and made decisions about the plan for the event.  Of course, it strikes me as off that you've got a situation where the professional isn't in the loop on the event planning.

If the volunteer can't stand up to the DE for whatever reason - then the volunteer need to go to the district chair.  The district chair can deal with the politics of the professional service.

1 hour ago, desertrat77 said:

Agreed, in the camporee example, the pro should talk to the Key 3.  But many pros either they don't care or there is a crew of unpleasant but long-tenured district vols that are difficult to deal with.  They are running things into the ground and it's easier just to avoid the subject altogether.

This all seems very probable from a system which has grown a out of control.  

1 hour ago, desertrat77 said:

Or their responsibilities at the council level are such that even if they wanted to bolster the next camporee or heaven forbid even attend, they don't have the time.  If professional responsibilities have ballooned to the point where they can't or won't care about unit level scouting, it's time to reevaluate what is truly value added.

It's too simplistic to say that "they can't or won't care about unit level scouting."  We volunteers throw phrases like this around, but it can mean so many different things.  To me, a DEs job is to provide professional support such that a district functions at maximum potential.  That's where their focus should be.  A typical DE has something like 50 units in their district.  That gives them time for what - 30-45 minutes a week per unit?

I think that we've all been abusing the DE role for a very long time now.  I have district volunteers who want the DE to make photocopies.  Unit leaders want the DE to drop equipment off at their house.  etc.  A DE should be focused on making the district more effective.

42 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Actually, I think you missed my point...at any level--unit, district, or council--if these mundane things are not being done, or being done in a substandard manner, the pros should have a vested interest in getting them fixed.

At some point a pro will have to set the right vision, recruit the right vols, and offer the appropriate resources and support so these things get done.  Or it definitely will impact their fiefdom.

The pro/vol relationship dynamic and duty breakout should not be planets apart. 

I think we have a different view of professionals in Scouting.  Professionals do not run Scouting - volunteers do.   We hire professionals because we recognize there are roles that benefit from having someone there full time to do them.

For example - if there are issues with the camporee - it should not be a professional's job to fix it.  That's the job of the district program chair or district chair.  Of course the professional should want to see it fixed - but that's why we have a Key 3.  The professional can sit down with the district chair and district commissioner and bring it up as a concern.  But, like in any organization, the person who's responsibility it is should be the one to address it.

I recognize that this seems idealistic.  To an extent it is.  But, our structure in the BSA is a mess.  Professionals who are doing too much, volunteers who are quitting because they are not empowered, unit volunteers who are frustrated because they expect professionals to fix things or care about things.  You want to empower volunteers - then you can't make them simply the job do-er for the professionals.  

4 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Agreed, the pros have their duties.   However, in my travels and scouting experiences, I've seen many pros that are so completely focused on their insular world of professional scouting that they've forgotten or never knew what scouting is really all about. 

I've dealt with several pros who have had nothing but open contempt for anything that happens in the field, and especially toward unit level scouters that called attention to council shortcomings (poor service to units, low quality summer camp, etc).

Yes, the pros are focused on money and manpower but somehow many of them don't realize they can't do anything without the "great unwashed"--unit level scouters and the overworked DEs.  Camporees, timely processing of paperwork at the council office, training schedules, the quality of food at the council camp...while these things seem mundane to pros, they directly impact the things they are chasing most--numbers.

 

 

Your list is somewhat making my point: "Camporees, timely processing of paperwork at the council office, training schedules, the quality of food at the council camp."

Camporees & training schedules are volunteer responsibilities.  Timely processing of paperwork (registrar) & food at the council camp (summer camp director) are professional responsibilities.  Getting unit volunteers talking to district/council volunteers would be a good thing.  It would help unit volunteers to understand the path to having an impact on things like camporees and training.  I think the CSE could guide the organization to sort this out.

On 1/4/2020 at 2:30 PM, desertrat77 said:

In the various councils I've belonged to, I've generally found the professional staff (above DE level) to be quite resistant to input from the field.  They are either in problem admiration mode or dismissive.  I fully understand that sometimes the answer is no, but open dialogue is not their strong suit.  One way communication.  This culture extends up to National as well. 

As @Eagle1993 mentioned earlier, this is a definite need for more transparency.

I'll admit - I don't see quite the same thing.  In our council, our professional staff is quite busy.  But, for the most part, the things they worry about are things that most volunteers don't care that much about (fundraising, membership, etc...).

The bigger issue I see is that ownership at the council level really isn't clear.  We don't do a really good job of letting folks know who is responsible for specific things.  So, we have lots of volunteers with ideas that get given to the professionals.  Yet, many of those ideas have little to do with professionals and are really volunteer functions.  Our professionals don't do a great job of making that clear.  

For example - a volunteer will take to the DE about some change that needs to happen with training - that we should hold a specific class at a specific time, etc.  But, professionals really have little to do with training.  It should be much clearer who a recommendation goes to - but it's not because most of us don't know or understand the structure of how things work in a council.

I'd think this is the kind of thing the CSE could instruct his program & HR teams to deal with.  More clearly define professional & volunteer responsibilities.  

4 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

My hunch, base on Mr. Mosby's prior experience, he probably has a message ready but the BSA "newsroom" is taking their time publishing it.  Looking through their archives, the newsroom has published five (5) articles since 20 Jun 2019.  Their last blog post was from July 2018. 

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/

Given the tidal waves of negative publicity the BSA has faced over the last 2 years, one would think the official news center of Irving would be a bit more proactive. 

If it's this - I'm not impressed.  National needs to be more aggressive.  As the new leader, now's the time to set the tone.  "Staff, I want a message out tomorrow."

Does someone have a national org chart they can share?  

EDIT: still looking, but found that the BSA hosts the 990s at: https://www.scouting.org/about/annual-report/

Thank you very much @4CouncilsScouter for following your convictions and making the tough choice.  Thank you for the many years of service and attempting to fight the good fight and the politics that do exist.

I have no idea where we'll end up nationally, but thank you for sharing with us some of your observations of what is happening within the national organization.  It really does help us to be more informed volunteers.

16 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Most of these are essential services at an executive level.  My contention is these functions are staffed with too many high paid managers and not enough worker bees.   Also, some of these departments are quite inefficient and need a shake up in what they do and how they do it. 

What problems do you think they need to solve that they are not?  Why do you think that they are inefficient?  Why do they need a shake up?

36 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

My concern is the number of pros receiving said salaries, the upshot being many of them are performing duties that contribute very little benefit to units in the field.  Executive level busy work.

Again - my suggestion is that we focus on the problems that we they need to solve.

To help, here are the positions on that list:

• Chief Scout Executive
• Chief Financial Officer
• Chief Technology Officer
• General Counsel
• Deputy Chief Scout Executive
• Asst. Chief Scout Executive of Development
• Asst. Chief Scout Executive of Outdoor Adventures
• Director of Human Resources
• Director of Information Technology
• Director of Marketing
• Director of Outdoor Adventures
• Director of Supply
• Director of Support Services
• Director of the National Jamboree
• Director of the Summit
• Director of Philanthropy
• Director of Government and Community Relations
• 2 Regional Directors (not sure where the other two are)

Many of these I can see would have little to no impact on unit serving people.  (i.e., General Counsel, Human Resources, Development, and Philanthropy).  But for the others, what do you think that their departments need to be doing that is not being done?

Maybe it's just me - but continuing to criticize the national salaries like this feels good, but isn't really bringing constructive ideas to the table.  I don't even see how this impacts just about anything I do either.  Say we reduce all the above salaries and then pass all the savings on the Scouts.  That does what - reduce the national budget by 5 million a year?  While that's a lot - it's not going to fundamentally change anything for us.

I think if we really want to engage with the CSE in a constructive way, we've got to focus on issues that are either a) painful to us as Scouters, or b) things that can bring impact to the program and achievable.  

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I attempted to think of various ways this forum can change, but it is difficult to see a way unless Mr. Mosby changes how National listens to volunteers.  I was/am 100% behind the various changes with respect to gays, transgender and girls; however, it was not handled well by National.  I think what we need, to be effective in providing feedback, is more transparency.  There is a ton of unit and district experience on this forum.  When decisions are being made/debated without transparency, we are left guessing and providing opinions on partial info. 

So, if Mr. Mosby brings forth more transparency, I think we should be willing to discuss/provide feedback regarding the issues of today without constantly bringing up actions from the past.    We should understand that the youth, parents, media and culture today are different than those in the 1980s and prior.  So what worked in 1965 or 1985 may not work today.  However, we also should stay true to the mission of the BSA.  Finding that balance is difficult, and we should be willing to admit that while providing feedback and comments.

Now, if Mr. Mosby starts by talking about eliminating god from Scouting, kicks off a poll, refuses to release the results and announces the change ... the gloves come off. 🙂

I'd suggest that one thing we could do to encourage Mr. Mosby's involvement (directly or indirectly) is to tone down some of the national/council/<whatever group> criticisms.  I'm not for a moment suggesting that we lessen the critiques of what is happening.  There is a very high level of competence and accomplishment within the volunteers in this forum - we are capabale of having frank conversations. 

However, I am suggesting that we can be more careful in reaching conclusions about their motivations.  It's been my experience that pretty often the people we criticize are much like us - folks who came to Scouting for good reasons.  They have kids and families.  They are doing what they believe to be right for Scouting - just as we all do.

2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

She got a very warm reception at the Wood Badge regional reunion at Blue Springs when she was new.  Sounded promising.  She was gone before the next annual reunion.

A chief executive needs to be both a good idea person, but also someone capable of leading the organization.  The right candidate will understand the challenges going in and develop strategies to address them.  

It sounds to me like Scouts Canada picked someone who could not effectively deal with the challenges and as such was a poor choice.  I do not think that should deter the BSA from making the right decision.

8 hours ago, Treflienne said:

Good.  So I am not crazy to want the scouts involved in the process, and not to want the committee to set a budget and decide spending with no scout input.   (I am still rather uncertain about how many non-BSA ideas I am bringing along from my girl scout background.)

@qwazse, thanks.

The rest of you:  any more suggestions for best practises as to how to involved scouts in the process?

 

I'd encourage you to think as big as you can.  There's really no set rule for things like scout involvement in the budget process.  If you can define a way for the Scouts to be involved in that process, then go for it.  Define the kind of involvement you wants the Scouts to have in running the troop, get the adults on board with that vision, and then have at it. 

I would encourage you though to define terms like "budget".  I was a Troop Committee Chair for a number of years.  To me, a budget is set at the level of "$1,000 for new equipment purchases, $3,000 for national dues, we want to maintain a funding reserve equal to 1 years expenses, etc."  For a budget, I wanted to plan to and track to the level of "are we going to have enough money this year to fund troop operations?  Are we running in the red or in the black?"  So, to me, I'd have welcomed Scouts to that discussion, but it would have been a little abstract I think.  90% of the troop adults found it to abstract too.

Now, when Scouts planned trips and events, absolutely they decided the costs and fees.  But, to me that's not having Scouts involved in the budget process - that's just Scouts doing trip planning.  Same would go for equipment purchases, meeting expenses, etc...

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

It already is.  When I was a UC, FOS, Popcorn, and Camp Cards were the first agenda item on 9 of 10 monthly meetings during the scout year.  Maybe 8, charter renewal fell in there a couple of times as well, but, that's also about cash.

Did you all ever revolt?  If I were a UC and it was just about that every month I think I'd go batty!

12 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

In other words, we have come up with a system for a Scout's personal growth and achievement that can operate almost entirely independently of the rank advancement process, the patrol system, the troop's youth leadership hierarchy, the troop's adult leadership, and pretty much all of the troop's program. All a Scout has to do is stay registered and meet with the Scoutmaster to get counselors and get blue cards signed. 

Why is this a bad thing?  

The merit badge program adds to the richness of Scouting.  For 99% of Scouts (and maybe more) it serves as another approach to learning and growth.  In a setting where most everything else is patrol or troop based, here's a part of the program that is individually driven.  What you learn is driven by you.  What skills you add is driven by you.

I think this is a health mirror to the rest of the program.  It's important in life to be able to work as a team to accomplish things.  It's just as important in life to recognize that you need to take responsibility for your own intellectual and skills growth.

3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

So there are boundaries to the Scouting program and what we should support:  "the context of the Scouting type activities - merit badges, camping, leadership opportunities, patrol activities."  Math problems, maybe not . . . but if there was a Mathematics merit badge, that would be okay?
 

Certainly - if there is a mathematics merit badge and a Scout is working on it, then yes - support that Scout in working on those math problems.  Since you're trying to define boundaries here, I'd say that supporting Scout's interest in earning merit badges is good because it's a core part of the program.  Doing math problems with your scouts is out because it is not part of the program.  While you could make a case that there is a role for math problems in the context of earning a badge, I'd argue that there is a difference.  Forcing a scout to do work on a specific Merit Badges should not be mandatory.  

I get the sense you're leading up to a bigger argument here.

1 minute ago, dkurtenbach said:

What you are saying is that anything that helps the Scout to grow belongs in Scouting, and we should support it with our Scouting resources.

Well - to an extent.  Math problems help my daughter to grow, but I wouldn't subject Scouts to that.

Within the context of the Scouting type activities - merit badges, camping, leadership opportunities, patrol activities, etc.  Yes - even if they don't bring specific value to the troop or community, yes - we should support them.

9 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

But once we get past that point, what value is there in a Scout pursuing non-advancement merit badges (elective merit badges beyond the eight needed for Eagle Scout rank)? 

Because the non-advancement merit badge program serves the individual Scout only, and includes many subject areas that have nothing to do with Scouting's core program, neither the troop nor Scouting generally nor the community get any benefit from the non-advancement merit badge program.  Couldn't the time and resources devoted to earning non-core non-advancement merit badges be put to better use?  Uses that provide value not only to the individual Scout, but to the troop and Scouting generally and the community: service projects or patrol campouts or leadership training? 

In our results oriented world  of today, I think we have to be careful how much we try to find the "value" in what Scouts do.

Scouting is a youth development activity with four aims.  All of those aims are targeted at developing the individual - they don't worry about how much value that individual then adds to the group.  I think this is the right model.  Since development of youth is the point, helping them develop along the four aims is the purpose.  So, if a youth earns 8, 18, or 80 merit badges and it helps the scout to grow then we're succeeding.

So, I wouldn't try to stop a Scout who's enjoying earning merit badges.  If all they ever do is earn merit badges (an extreme case), then we should suggest that there are other parts of Scouting to explore.  But, I would not suggest that they stop earning merit badges.

7 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Interesting discussion, but I would take a step back:  Why do we have merit badge fairs at all?  I see lots of Scouts who have earned 30, 40, 60 or more merit badges before reaching Eagle Scout rank.  Why on earth would any Scout be interested in earning more than the minimum number of merit badges necessary for each particular rank?  The required merit badges represent areas that BSA thinks are important for a well-rounded Eagle Scout.  A Scout already has the opportunity to explore eight additional personal interest areas via elective merit badges; so that "personal interest" role for merit badges is adequately covered within the twenty-one total badges required for Eagle Scout rank.  Aside from earning Eagle Palms, which confer no status, BSA offers no incentives for earning more merit badges than the number required.  So what is the magic of merit badges that has created a huge infrastructure of merit badge fairs and merit badge counselors to support the program?

I think that the answer is that adults (Scout leaders and parents) teach Scouts that the cumulative number of merit badges received confers a status of its own that is separate from rank.  But where does that come from, since most of the merit badge topics are unrelated to the core skills and knowledge of the BSA program?  Why isn't all that energy being directed toward accomplishments that are closer to the core of the BSA program, like nights camped, miles hiked, or service hours completed?

It's probably worth restating the aims: character development, citizenship training, personal fitness, and leadership.

I see that merit badges accomplish a few things:

• they help a scout explore an area of interest
• they provide some adult/youth interaction
• they are (can be) fun

The more areas you learn about as a kid, the more prepared you are as a citizen.  Along the way, you get to interact with more adults which might help you in developing your own character (aka adult association).  Oh yeah, you get to have some fun too.

10 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Since 1992 Title 36 seems to have no application at all. If no new organization can vie for a charter, it seems like having one is just a mark that the nation's representatives liked you once upon a time. Organizations do Congress the courtesy of sending it a report. But I'm not entirely sure that they'd loose sleep if they didn't get one.

What was the significance of 1992?

Baring some sort of legal change of status, I'd think the rule still apply.  These are the rules that governed incorporation of the BSA.  Someone who has standing to sue over those rules could.