ParkMan

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

Also from the article :

"The Boy Scouts’ potential bankruptcy is an administrative issue and not a financial one, Dumas [plaintifs' attorney] said."

“They have more than $1 billion in assets and an estimated at least $100 million in insurance money available,” Dumas explained. Bankruptcy would be “a tool to put the assets all in one place, figure out who has claims and an organized way to compensate the victims.”

This quote just saddens me.  I just wish we could find a way through this without having to carve up BSA assets.  I'm struck by the fact that the people who suffer from a BSA bankruptcy and carving up of 100 years of assets are not investors or hedge funds - it's millions of Scouts today and in the future.

Yet, those who were abused clearly deserve compensation.  What happened to them was reprehensible.

I don't know how to make sense of this.

Good to know.  Thanks  it occurred to me while I was sewing patches that I should have waited.  Glad to know there is probably no big change coming.

Thanks @walk in the woods.  You've hit on something I've struggled with.  Please let me get your take.

I'm a firm believer in the inverted triangle of Scouting.  Scouting happens in units and the district is here to support that.  My whole Scouting career has been 95% unit level service with the occasional foray into district or council things.

Where do you see the balance between district as servent to the units and district as Scouting community leader?  For example - if I look around my district today, I guarantee that each units has different goals and objectives.  Most, I expect, don't give the district more than an occasional thought.  I know that as a unit volunteer, I didn't.

I 100% get improving district services for unit and also improving commissioner service.  But, if filling out the commissioner team needs to be done prior to even attempting this, it seems like this is a very long process indeed.

I guess my point is - I don't see any of the units as being the position to grow Scouting community wide.  So, taking something on like that seems like a district task.  Yet, with the idea being that the district is really just here to support the units - how do you accomplish community growth?

As we try to compare, I think the other reality is that there really is no equivalent of a pack/troop in the GSUSA system. 

In essence, I think this is a big part of why the GSUSA has less of a camping & outdoor focus.  Many adults gain confidence in camping as part of the pack structure.  The pack knows how to camp, newer parents and leaders tag and learn.  Since the GSUSA doesn't have that, it's harder for their leaders to develop those skills.  I'm guessing this is why two organizations that started out pretty similar are now so different.

For sure - not nationals best idea.  Most unit leaders I know are never going to bother to print either.  This might as well be the end of each.

Thank you all so much for the feedback.  I'm reading it all very carefully and think it's very helpful.  From this, I think I'm assembling a picture here.

1. Start with a core goal.  In this case - we want to grow Scouting in our district.  Use this as the basis for why we're doing things.

2. Rally the district committee around that goal.  Next, sit with each member and operating committee and figure out what they are motivated to do to advance it.  Work with them to establish their own goals.  From the discussions here, I'm walking away with the impression that the best benefits come from:

• increasing the visibility of Scouting in the community - marketing, social media, & community activities
• working with units to increase their own ability to recruit & market
• focusing on quality program.

A quality program sells itself - but that people do need to know it there. As a side note - the specifics above on how to do these things are awesome! 

3. Build an environment within the district team, but to an extent the entire district, where members can be successful.  Celebrate those successes.  Create excitement and build momentum

4. Within the district committee, set a specific goal to grow the team this year - 30% sounds like a good goal.  Bring more people to the cause, thereby enabling the team to have a bigger impact.  As the team grows, we'll be able to do even more things.

Close?

Seems like a while back there was lots of discussion and prototypes of new uniforms for Scouts BSA girls.

Anyone know of they decided to change them? Any idea of when?

Merry Christmas @JoeBob!

In the spirit of @LeCastor's post on positive thinking, I thought I'd start a discussion on how to grow Scouting in a community.  

Here's the premise.  Say your district is like many districts out there today.  Membership slowly declining, the number of units maybe two-thirds what it was 20 years ago, round table participation dropping, volunteers helping organize things outside of the units are decreasing (camporee, day camp, etc).  Let's further assume that the community itself is doing well - population is growing, people are generally well employed, etc.  You have some units that are going great - so you know it can be done.

Imagine you're a district committee.  You can invest wherever you want - but just recognize that you've got limited volunteers already.  For example - you've got a district membership chair, but certainly no membership committee.  You've got a day camp chief, but no camporee committee.

Say that you set a goal to double the number of youth in Scouting in 10 years.  

How would you approach this?  You're a district committee, so everything is on the table.

I would ask - let's try to keep it positive. 

Time to make this a problem for a bigger audience.  Bring this to the DC and district key three.  

If you don't want to lose the unit, time to escalate.

Thank you @Cambridgeskip - you're description is intriguing.   I can see how that would work. 

I do think Scouting in the US would look different here in the US if we did that.  Not neccessarily a bad thing, but it would be different.  I'm kinda imagineing that we'd see fewer, stronger units.  in my Scout district here, we've probably got something like 30 Chartering organizations.  Some of those Chartering Organizations have very strong units with well developed leadership teams and lots of Scouts.  Others are just a few Scouts that meet infrequently.  I'm thinking that something like this would discourage the very small groups and encourage them to join on with a bigger group.

In both the pack and troop, leaders pay their own dues.  I think we'd like to pay them for folks, but we've always tried to keep dues low for the boys.

I've never had a leader balk at it.

*EDIT - sorry, didn't catch that this was an old thread*

15 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is how GSUSA operates its units

 

I wonder how that would work in practice.  How do you find meeting space, etc?  I think @Cambridgeskip said they owned their meeting space.  I'm trying to envision how even our biggest troops around here would do that.

11 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

Agree that this is a weak link that needs to be eliminated.  I does not take long to get background checks done.  

When I was hired by the school system, I was required to submit to a FBI national background check.  This was well before the almost instant checks that can be done now, and it was done in a matter of days.  No reason at all why a potential leader can not be told that they are not registered until we get word from council that they have been cleared.

Being an educator rather than a lawyer, I am not sure if giving results to the CC or COR is legal.  Maybe one of our legal eagles could shed light on that.  Even if legal, I would be hesitant to do more than tell a unit that the applicant did not clear.  I could see serious issues if specifics were given to unit leaders, who then did the 'guess why so and so can't be a leader' routine.

That's reasonable.  I don't really need to know why someone failed - just that they failed.  I'd be happy with a description of what the BSA background check process is with an affirmative or negative result. i.e.,

The BSA background checks look for the following things:

• - prior criminal record
• - a check against a national BSA database for removed leaders

Recent applications you submitted resulted as:

• Joe Smith - FAILED
• Bob Jones - PASSED

4 minutes ago, Terasec said:

think BSA should do background checks on all that register, leaders and parents,

we all check the box authorizing bsa to do so. but no guarantee it is done,

also results of background checks should be forwarded/accessible by the unit. whether cub master or committee has access is negotiable,

this would add an additional barrier in case someone with a record slips through national background check

 

This is the weak link the system now.  The BSA really should:

1) Not consider a leader registered until after the check is done

2) Provide details on the results of the background check to the CC & COR.

4 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

True, but I'm thinking primarily of the public's perception of the BSA as this issue continues to unfold.  Previously, many potential COs didn't want the extra work or potential liability.  I'd say that the reluctance level to charter is going to be much higher now.

Perhaps, but I think it's addressable.

• These lawsuits are from events of 30 years ago.
• The BSA has significantly stronger YPT training today
• The BSA has significantly more stringent YPT rules today
• The BSA has a much more thorough adult vetting process today.

On 12/18/2018 at 7:01 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

As you know, I left a troop because two sets of parent caused so many problems interfering that my sons and I had it. We left and are much happier with the troop we are with. But we still have friends with that troop, and I do have Scouts still with them, so I am still in communication with them. Plus I am listed as their UC.

Anyway, the COR has intervened and stated only fully trained ASMs on trips now. They did this because of complaints from the Scouts about interfering adults, problems at the camporee that had the SM and several ASMs want to quit, and my family quitting. Core adults Scouters and COR had a chat over the problem, and he is intervening. All of the families were OK with this rule, except 3, and the two loudest in their protestations are the 2 trouble-making families. As you know from previous threads on these two, there have been 5 parent meetings called because they were interfering, multiple private sessions with one family over their interference, threats to leave camp outs if they didn't get their way (which would leave the troop stranded), and in one instance one family actually did leave when they didn't get their way (thankfully there were enough drivers that it didn't affect us). So there is a history of ignoring the SM and ASMs and doing there own thing. Talking to an ASM about the matter there is a concern that they will ignore the CO's new directives, and just show up.

Lots of good advice in this thread.  

 @Eagle94-A1 Since you're the UC, I think you have an important role here.  The problem I see in this troop is that the SM & CC are allowing families to run amuk.  They need to understand that they are empowered to take the actions necessary to keep the program functioning correctly.  This statement is crazy:

Quote

As you know from previous threads on these two, there have been 5 parent meetings called because they were interfering, multiple private sessions with one family over their interference, threats to leave camp outs if they didn't get their way

What?  This drama is destroying that troop.  The CC may feel that he can't do anything about it.  But - frankly - he's not doing his job if he doesn't.  After all this, I think the CC ought to just ask them to leave now.  Time to set the example.

Both the CC & Scoutmaster each have the right to determine who camps.   Both have the authority to remove any Scout from the program.  No letters to council are needed.

That the COR had to step in here is a failing of the unit's leadership.  The COR is the person from the CO who ensures that the unit is operating a program that is in line with the expectations of the church.  It's not an operational role.

As their UC,  you are in the best position to sit down with them and empower the heck out of them.  The buck stops with them.  If you're too close as a former member and friend, then ask your DC to come join you for that discussion.

9 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

It was tough to find new COs before this, or keep the legacy COs....

It's going to be difficult to find new ones.

 

Out of some fairness to the BSA here.  This seems to be a generic problem facing any youth serving organization.  How do you make sure that your adult volunteers do not abuse youth?

The BSA's error was that they had a list of known offenders yet were loose enough in vetting the new volunteers that they didn't catch the problems.

52 minutes ago, Eaglein87 said:

Not all CO's just the ones where the alleged SA took place. I would think that a prosecutor would go after National, and all those involved which would include Chartering Org especially if it was a church (deep pockets). When it happens (because it will) will not bode well for CO sponsorship of BSA Troops. Already hearing grumblings from CO's on this issue. Church members are wary of possible litigation that may Trickle down. We have a major problem folks.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some additional transparency around volunteer background checks.  Today we fill out an application and send it in.  We really don't get feedback on that application.  I could see something where national will have to process the application and acknowledge the volunteer passes before they become an officially registered adult.

13 hours ago, Buggie said:

I've been posing the question to scouts during their BORs. "What would you like to do?" Hoping I could help facilitate the PLC to plan some sort of activity other than basic camping. Our older scouts don't care about anything. Younger scouts tend to want to do fishing. That's about it. Bums me out because I don't care for fishing, but I love hiking and canoeing. 

I have experience in two troops.  My current troop doesn't do anything other than car camping that I've seen so far. They have a history of going out and hiking along the Ouachita Trail for a stretch of a few days. Because the current troop doesn't do much beyond car camping, I've also been bringing up the Council's high adventure treks that are offered in the spring and fall seasons, along with the other items they might be interested in. No one ever bites though. 

The other troop alternated every two years with a week long high adventure trek. Mountain hiking/camping one summer, two years later a canoe trip, two more years and back to the mountains. All adult organized (which is another irritation I have), but at least they got the scouts OUT a few times. If the scout lasted their average seven years before ageing out, they had the opportunity to do one of each at least. Typically first years scouts were not allowed to go, in lieu of summer camp instead. 

 

Makes me wonder...  Where does a Scoutmaster need to jump in inject some bigger thinking?  

At some point don't you have to jump in and get them out of their rut?

19 hours ago, dilrod said:

Has anyone else experienced difficulty in getting a knot for a position they held?  It took my 3 years to finally get a Den Leader knot.  This only happened because I took it upon myself to prep all the forms (not just my own, but my fellow Den & Pack leaders going back two years), get the signatures and submitted to the District training chair.  The Council sat on them forever & some of those never came.  

I see those old Scouters with a chest full of knots and wonder how that happened.  Were they better about awarding and processing these things in the old days?

An unfortunate reality I learned about Scouting is that lots of stuff falls through the cracks.  The BSA systems for stuff like this are all paperwork driven.  The folks who submit the forms are volunteers, the folks who sign them are volunteers, the folks who send them to the council are volunteers, and the folks who process them are ridiculously underpaid staff.

I think many of the folks with rows of them have simply learned the system.  They walk the paperwork through the signatures and drop it off personally.  They make sure it gets done.

It's unfortunate that this is what it takes sometimes.  But I like our DE and council staff and recognize that they are genuinely trying - so I really don't mind dealing with stuff like this.

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

What if he doesn't convert. 

First Class requirement: 

1. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law (different from those points used for previous ranks) in your everyday life.

Will the scout be satisfied with experiencing only 7 of the 8 Methods of Scouting?

BArry

Sorry - was away for a few hours.  This topic is moving fast.

There are so many ways to handle this one.  Here's a few:

1. be up front with the Scout.  Tell him/her that this requirement is coming and that they will not be able to advance past it.  His/her choice if they still want to join.
2. be ridiculously literal.  recognize that in the Scouts mind there is no god and so that he has completed his duty to god by doing nothing.  Focus on the remaining parts of the Scout law.
3. project a bit.  Discuss the concept of God and what it means to do your duty to God.  Have a discussion around how he is living his life in a way that would mirror what those with a belief in God would do.
4. interpret a bit.  substitute "greater good" for God.  Have him tell how he has done his duty to the greater good.

51 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Just my two cents. I've yet to have a problem infiltrating the old guard. 

Gotta admit - this has been exactly my experience too.  Respect and embrace their experience and they are wonderful additions to your program.

Whoa.  I didn't see anything here that said the old guard members in this instance did not allow in new blood.  Perhaps I should have inferred that, but I didn't.

Scouting experience is a wonderful thing.  It provide continuity and experience to the leadership team.  Our troop has a very rich mix of parents and experienced Scouters whose kids have long since left the program.  I cannot begin to tell you how much we've benefited from having those 10+ year veterans in our leadership team.  We have one leader who has been taking the Scouts to summer camp for over 20 years.  That leader is fantastic with the Scouts.  I shudder to think of the loss to our scouts if we asked every leader who's kids are done in Scouting is made to feel they need to move on.  How awful. 

Of course a troop wants a balanced leadership team.  Having just old guard with no current parents makes no sense.  That's a way to get a stale leadership team.  The flip side is equally wrong.  Having just current parents in the troop limits your ability to draw on experience.  End of the day, you want a mix.

This is where Committee Chairs and Scoutmasters earn their stripes.  The good ones know how to leverage different backgrounds to make things happen.  This is exactly why we have these folks - to organize and guide our adult leaders.

42 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

But doing one's duty to God IS the program, or at least it's certainly one of the most important parts of it. It's the first thing we commit to doing every time we recite the Scout oath, and if we, as Scouters, decide that we no longer wish to fulfil that obligation, an obligation we promised to do ON OUR HONOR, what good is our word in regards to anything any more? I made the oath as a brand new 11 year-old Scout, more than 20 years ago, that I would do my duty to God. Thus I am obliged, on my honor, to continue to do so for the rest of my life, and that includes defending it from those who would remove it from the very fabric of Scouting. And what's more, I want to do it. It shapes and molds my character daily, not just because it's nice, not just because it's respectable, but because it is my duty to God, and I am honored to serve Him. Millions of boys over the past century will gladly say the same.

I am a little tired of hearing the word "exclusion," as though by requiring Scouts to acknowledge God we were the ones kicking them out. Not so. Our program is religious in composition if not in denomination, and if a young person wishes to exclude religious from his or her life, they should find a program that will serve them "according to the dictates of their own conscience." Scouting is not that program, and that's okay - let us serve the youth who want religion in their lives, and let other programs serve those who don't. That's not exclusion. That's being respectful of the feelings of others - both those who don't believe, and those who do.

Understood - but my point holds.

For the sake of discussion, say our troop is very devout.  If a Scout who does not believe wants to join us and participate fully in our troop, why not?  He can stand there and absorb all kinds of religious goodness.  He may even convert in the process.

Wouldn't we want that?  If it's good enough for my church, why not my troop?