ParkMan

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Only partially true. It matters to Scouts BSA if just two men leading a troop for girls, 

I think you're conflating issues here.  Yes there are YPT rules.  The point is that we shouldn't fall into the same trap we all describe the GSUSA of doing - assuming the women need to the leaders of troops with scouts who are girls. 

Aside from YPT rules, I envision a lot of fathers who are looking for ways to participate in the Scouting activities of their daughters.  If my daughter wants to join a troop I'll volunteer.

5 hours ago, cocomax said:

So. . .  I am waiting to see what happens when the BSA for girl troops start up. . . 

Will it be great with Outdoorsy women taking the role of scout master for these girls. . . 

or will the BSA for Girls suffer the same fate as GSUSA with leaders that will not camp or hike and then just fall back to the class room style advancement centered program that many troops cling to because check lists are the easy way to run things.

The weak spot will be the adult leaders of the girls and finding the right women that can do that job, it will be a hard job, a drama minefield. 

The promise of Scouts BSA isn't that there are outdoorsy mom that serve as Scoutmasters.  It that it no longer matters that it's a male or female Scouter who serves as Scoutmaster.  Scouts no longer cares what your gender is.

29 minutes ago, Sablanck said:

I have been handling this as its been happening.  Currently we have a survey out to see what each district wants to do.  I have heard from one.  Waiting to hear from the other.  I am one of those crazy scouters that handles communications and what not all day everyday.  

Sounds great - very nice approach.

I only made the suggestion because I've learned in my own scouting travels that Scouters come from so many different backgrounds that I've gotten a lot out of being flexible and always listening.  Sure, often the conversations go nowhere.  But sometimes I find there's a volunteer with some idea or energy that made the call worth it.

I always stuck to God.  I gathered it was the most transferrable between faiths.

A way I've also seen this done is to pick prayers from different faiths from time. It seems like a nice way to share some different things with the scouts.  You've just got to be careful to avoid @qwazse's "God Jesus" example.  Another variant here is to ask around you pack and see if there are people from different faiths and enlist their help with a prayer from time to time.

On the question of Lord.  I was reminded that Lord is used in the Philmont Grace.  That's about as close to a Scouting prayer as I think we get, so perhaps if they use it there it's pretty safe.

Our council has all 3 digit troop numbers and uses a system where a district or two share the same first numeral.  I.e. all packs and troops in district Something are in the range of 100-199.  I suppose a mix up could happen - but it doesn't seem terribly likely.  If you had a conflict, someone would catch it quickly.

I haven't heard of a rule about not sharing numbers in our council - but I doubt we'd see that rule.  Our council doesn't seem to make a lot of rules like that.

My short answer would be yes - they are separate entities and probably should have separate bank accounts.

Longer answer is that it depends on how you're structuring the troops.  Are these linked troops?  Will they often go on joint trips?  Will they have the same troop meetings?  Do they share equipment?  Do they share common committee members?  Do they share a treasurer?

Lots of yes's here may suggest that it makes more sense to have a combined back account and have your treasurer track money as appropriate.  You very well could quickly end up where your doing lots of transferring money back & forth just for the sake of having separate bank accounts.  

But - if it's the more normal case of two completely separate troops at the same CO - then yes, separate bank accounts sounds like the right choice.

9 hours ago, Sablanck said:

I have been curious as to when OA will have to stop wearing all and any Native american clothing and use of artifacts real or implied.

So to recap we had a planning meeting that was extremely productive last week.  This morning an email was sent out by a WB person stating he has issues with some of the planning.  This person now wants to have a meeting to address those issues yet has not attended any of the previous 3 or 4 planning meetings.  Good times!!

What not just give him a call and listen to his input?

I'm always happy to talk on the phone to someone for 15 minutes about something.  Who knows, maybe he's got some good insight.  Maybe he's interested in helping, but felt unwelcome because of his WB status.  You never know, a phone call might be the start of a really productive volunteer to your team.

Or again, maybe it's 15 minutes of your life wasted that you'll never get back.  Guess it's a roll of the dice.

31 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Many organizations and companies whose names switched to (or always were) acronyms have been able to stick with the acronym even though the historical terms may be obsolete. For example: YMCA, KFC, AMF, 3M to name a quick few.

That's my read too.  The name of the program you join is more important than the name of the organization.

11 minutes ago, cocomax said:

Well, they are not going to be happy if everyone starts calling the "Boy Scouts" the "Scouts" after the girls join next year, which is what I see happening.

Perhaps not - but I do think we have to separate what "makes the GSUSA happy" from what the BSA can legally do.

11 minutes ago, cocomax said:

They might say "Scouts" to be politically correct, but their brain knows they are really the "Boy Scouts" and that  girls can join the "Boy Scouts" now and that is cool, but we can not say "Boy Scouts" anymore because that will upset the girls.

I suspect for a long time - there will be people who will have to internally translate from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts".  That's normal.  You could probably also just refer to is as "TPFKABS" (The Program Formerly Known As Boy Scouts)

But it has nothing to do with upsetting girls.  The very fact that people say this is about not upsetting girls is exactly why we need to change the name.  On Feb 1, 2019 the program is equally one for boys & girls.  It's not about upsetting the girls, it's about making it their program too.  By changing the name, it's a very clear statement that it's now a program for girls just as much as for boys.  It's not about upsetting girls, it's about welcoming girls with open arms.

21 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Nah. For a den, you can have Assistant Den Leaders. My son's den had 23 boys at one point and the DL has 2 or 3 ADLs. Nothing keeps the GSUSA, and their lack of official positions, from having a very similar solution - and I think it would be even easier for GSUSA since the volunteers would not have the expense of an ADL uniform.

In my daughter's first GSUSA troop, I was an active and registered leader. No official title but I ran two meetings a semester at the request of the troop leader. Again, nothing kept those other troops from asking me to do the same or something similar to make adding my daughter less of a burden.

Sure - my son had a den of 16 boys.  It was awful.  It was big enough that you really couldn't do much as a group of 16.  So, they'd split in half for everything.  It would be different halves each time.  At 16, it was also big enough that you had cliques within the den.  So boys hung around with each other.  My son, more of an introvert, never really bonded with those boys and so never really had more than a friend or two in the den.

In the spirit of full disclosure.  My wife is a GS leader of a troop of 12 girls.  She's resisted the pressure for years to add more girls.  As a result, it's been the same 12 girls for the past 6 years.  Once they lost a girl, but she came back a year later.  In her case, it's not about bringing the Girl Scout program to as many girls as possible.  it's about having the best program for the girls in their troop.  Watching BSA dynamics, my suspicion that if they'd added girls, it would become too big and they'd have to add structure.  It would be less about a group of 12 girls going through Scouting together and more a group of 16 or 20 girls split into groups.

So, I think at some point a den is just too large.  That's why we've got packs.  The GSUSA doesn't really have packs, so what do you do?  A GS troop of 24 girls together?  The GSUSA model really necessitates having more troops.

16 hours ago, SSScout said:

Check in with your District.   Your experience would be very welcomed in several areas, I am sure. Some Ideas:

** Eagle Coordinator. EBoR organizer and fact checker. Very appreciated fellow. 

** Training.   IOLS,  NYLT,  BALOO...   many possibilities for your years of Being There, and Doing It....

**  Commissioner.  Different types,  as a Commisher, you can do almost anything you think needs to be done.

** Program Committee.   These folks organize the Camporees and Webelos Weekends and such.  You could even invent something new, like one of my new Scouter friends. He developed a "Scouteree" as a recruiting event. Invite the public, let'm tie knots, climb walls, fold flags, etc.  

**   First Assistant Everything Else....   You name it, they will probably let you do it...

See you on the trail ? 

 

Great list!

I think of it as "community scouting".  These are all hands on jobs that let you work with Scouts & other Scouters.  Most of them result in direct, hands on impact for Scouts.  Sure, you're not impacting 30-60 scouts in your troop, but you are impacting hundreds of Scouts in your community.  Very cool.

27 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I haven't read anywhere where BSA wants to get to any particular male/female balance.

They want to meet a demand. They hope that, in doing so, they will attract more boys.

If you're the BSA, you don't go through all the effort of making the organization open to both genders if you really just want to attract more boys.  Yes, I'll grant that the BSA wants to increase members. It if came from 100% growth in boys and 0% growth in girls, I'm sure they'd still claim victory.  But I have to imagine that the BSA leadership would like to see their joining rate among the population the same for all parts of the program.  So, since we're essentally 50% girls/boys in the country, it would seem too that getting their membership there would be appropriate.

20 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Sure, there will be girls (and maybe parents) who get hung up on the name of the "Boy Scout" program.  But consider:  (1) There was, at least according to BSA, strong demand by girls for admission into "Boy Scouts," not conditioned upon changing the program name.  (2) After the initial period (two or three years), most of the girls in the Boy Scouts of America program for ages 11-17 will be crossing over from Cub Scouts, where they will (presumably) have been fully informed about the content of the "Boy Scout" program and will be able to weigh that information against the word 'boy' in the program name.  (3) They will already be in a program (Cub Scouts) of the Boy Scouts of America with a lot of other girls, with the support of their parents.  They would cross over into a Boy Scout troop that is composed entirely of other girls who have chosen to be there despite the word 'boy' in both the organization and program name.   

I think this is one of those things we could continue to round and round arguing.  Making your program co-ed, but then calling it "Boy Scouts" just seems like it's not all the welcoming to girls.  If we expect girls to get over the name of "Boy Scouts", then why can we not similarly expect boys to get over the name "Scout BSA" or whatever?

I love the name "Boy Scouts" but just think it makes a lot more sense for them to simply be "Scouts."  How one gets to Scouts, I don't know.  I do kinda think that maybe something along the lines of what the GSUSA does with it's levels makse sense: Dasies, Brownies, Juniors, Cadettes, Seniors, & Ambassadors.  No where in their program is the term "Girl Scout" used to refer to a level.  Bail on Scouts BSA and go with something completely different.

2 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

I think "Boy Scouts" as the name of the age 11-17 program is the viable long-term solution.  Over the last 110 years, that two-word combination has taken on a significance and meaning of its own.  The name "Boy Scout" in the American tradition is, of course, associated with boys, but it has become loaded with concepts including an honor code, service, camping, patriotism, Eagle Scout rank, first aid and other handy skills, achievement, and leadership.  When you see a Peanuts cartoon with Snoopy and the birds on a hike, it isn't confusing even though no boys are depicted.  We've already heard from lots of girls who want to be Boy Scouts -- and not because they want to be boys.

I'm happy to stipulate that many think staying with "Boy Scouts" would have made sense.  The BSA wants to expand and fully welcome girls - not just pick up a few girls as members here and there, but get to a point where 50% of the members are girls.  Continuing to call your program "Boy Scouts" doesn't seem to convey that inclusiveness.  Maybe you pick up the really adventurous girls who don't care.  But, I think when you go to the larger population out there and some parent asks their daughter "do you want to be a girl scout or boy scout?"  Girls are generally going to pick "girl scout."  So, it was in the interest's of the BSA to find a way to refer to the program that: conveyed Scout, didn't tick off too many boys, encouraged as many girls as possible.

6 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Very easy solution. You ask the new parent to take on an active role in the troop so their daughter can be a member. My daughter was turned away more than once and not once did the rejecting troop even ask me  if I (or my wife) was willing to be a volunteer. I literally had to beg to find her a troop.

And really, how is this any different than BSA? Have too many scouts to fit into two cars, then someone else will have to volunteer to drive the third vehicle.

When my daughter wanted to join cub scouts, the CC asked me if I wanted to lead the den. I didn't really want to but I accepted the job so my daughter could have this experience. I don't see why GSUSA should approach growth in such a different and more exclusive manner.

Doesn't seem like a rational response.

But where it's different is imagine you're having this conversation with a den leader - not a Cubmaster.  In the GSUSA system, there's no Cubmaster, no Pack Committee, no treasurer.  You've got a den leader and assistant who has agreed to lead his/her kid's den.  The den has 12 scouts today.  You come along and say "I'd like to add my child and have it be 13".  You're probably the fifth or sixth person (if not more) who has asked.  The den leaders knows - if they don't say no, they are going to be leading a den of 20 kids.

I use the den leader analogy because that's really what it is.  These folks are generally not Cubmasters or CC's who are signing up build a bigger troop with multiple groups doing things.  They are the GSUSA equivalent of den leaders who want to lead their child's scout group.

6 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

A frequently-heard comment when BSA first announced that it would be admitting girls into the Cub Scout and (what is currently) the Boy Scout program was that it was unnecessary, because there was already a Scouting program for girls -- GSUSA.  Given the variety of programmatic and organizational differences between BSA and GSUSA we've been talking about, it is clear that there is not a single generic "Scouting" program that is delivered by both BSA and GSUSA with only minor stylistic differences.  Added up, the differences between the two Scouting programs are significant -- reason enough for BSA to open up its last two single-gender programs and give girls another choice.   

Yes - agreed.

6 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Tying this back to the larger subject of this thread:  All the more reason, it seems to me, for BSA to have made a real effort to brand the age 11-17 program in a way that would distance it from GSUSA and clearly show girls that this is definitely not Girl Scouts.  Even if they really, really don't want to keep "Boy Scouts" as the name of that program, "Scouts BSA" does nothing to clearly distinguish the Boy Scouts of America program from the Girl Scouts of the USA program.  On the contrary, it hamstrings the competitiveness of the BSA program by promoting the generic "Scouting" program myth that one Scouting program is pretty much the same as the other.

Sure - but I've no idea what you'd call it.  Boy Scouts really wasn't a viable long term solution as they wanted to market the program on it's strengths to girls.  Continuing to call it "Boy Scouts" would have hamstrung making it a program for girls as well.  You could get rid of Scouts - but that would be a huge loss.  Once you get past that, what do you do?  Add some new prefix?

The other big thing I see is the loss of mentors to encourage new leaders.  

Imagine if every  Cub Scout pack & Boy Scout troop had to figure out it's program from scratch.  In the chartered organization system, we have programs that build on each other year after year.  Imagine if a den leader had to figure it all out on their own and do it by themselves.  Imagine if new Troop parents had to figure out how to do things from scratch constantly.  To me, this is one of the biggest consequences of that approach.

1 hour ago, 69RoadRunner said:

My wife is a GS leader. This is understandable when you look at how they organize troops.  Each troop is usually 1 or 2 age groups, unlike BSA where we're 11-18 in the same troop.

The troops are smaller and can only handle so many girls at a time. There have been times when my wife could not find an available troop for a girl who was not in my wife's troop's age group.

Like most groups, finding enough volunteers is a struggle.

A large part of this stems from the charter partner concept.  It gives the BSA packs and troops more permanace.  In the BSA, units stay around a lot longer too.  In the GSUSA, units tend to form around a group of girls.  When they are done, so too are the troops.  

It may just be a local thing - but around here we see what they call multi-level GSUSA troops.  These function much more like a BSA unit and have girls of all ages.  Most tend to be large too as they pick up more membership from all the small troops that are at max capacity.

I like the GSUSA, but I've never understood this.  In the BSA we bend over backwards to have female leaders.  

Yet, in my daughter's troop - all women.  Never even once have they even suggested that fathers could help.  It's really a shame that they overlook the fathers who would love to help out.

34 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Interesting article.  It does sound like the national level leadership has given up on "past notions of 'outdoorsmanship,'" but that the question of outdoorsmanship in Girl Scouts is still a matter of internal hand-wringing at the local level.  The article also includes the following:

"Local Girl Scout leaders also complain that implicit in the Boy Scouts' recruitment promises of high outdoor adventure is the suggestion that their program lacks access to those activities.

"[Lidia Soto-Harmon, chief executive of the Girl Scouts Council of the Nations's Capital] points out that [her council], the largest council in the country, owns eight camping facilities in the area, spanning more than a thousand acres of land, where girls can practice archery, canoeing, kayaking, climbing and more.

"Yet the extent to which girls take advantage of all of those outdoor opportunities depends a lot on the troop, leaders admit."

I was quite surprised to see that quote. 

I can definitely see the struggle here.  I do know that in our local GSUSA has several very good outdoor camps.  Some of our local Girl Scout troops are as outdoor focused as Boy Scout troops. 

My daughters both started attending an outdoor focused week long away summer camp before my son did.  In fact, I think my daughters have continue along in Scouting longer than my son because the have both had very good summer camp experiences.

Our prior SM took a year off from the troop.  He came back and helped with summer camp and the new scout program.  But for the first year, he stayed away from the troop.  I know of another Scoutmaster in a similar scenario who came back and coached scouts on organizing Eagle Courts of Honor.  

Me - I'd encourage becoming a Commissioner or joining the district camping committee.  Our districts need more experienced Scouters to help coach units or to make our district programs stronger.

Why would you have a preliminary board though?  I don't know the number, but I've got to guess something like 95% or greater pass their EBOR.  

Quote

8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”

Though one reason for a board of review is to help ensure the Scout did what he was supposed to do to meet the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or “examination,” nor a challenge of his knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey. A badge recognizes what a young man has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. See “Personal Growth Is the Primary Goal,” 2.0.0.3. It is thus more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned. See also “Mechanics of Advancement: In Boy Scouting and Varsity Scouting,” 4.2.0.0.

I get that from time to time an EBOR runs into some weird case where the board feels they need to reject a scout.  But, if that rejection is something that that could have been mitigated by a practice board, that seems incorrect.  Sure, the board can have some aire of formality because of the importance of the board.  But, once the board starts thinking that they might need to reject a candidate, I would sure hope the board members switch gears and do their best to get to the truth of the matter.  They should be looking for reasons in these instances to pass the Scout - not reject him.  If a board is rejecting a Scout because he wasn't prepared enough for the board, or his answers to questions were not polished enough, or couldn't explain something - that doesn't seem correct.

I'm drawn by the statement above:

Quote

In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment.

I like to think of the adult leaders in my troop as a team.  We're all in it together to bring Scouting to the youth in our troop.

If some of the leaders in our troop are uncomfortable with certain language, I'd hope they'd say so.  Generally, I try to keep our meetings fairly professional - so I tend to shy away from any kind of adult language.  Not so much because it's a Scout setting - but because I wouldn't do it at work, church, etc...  But, if something we do say or how we say it is bothering some members of our team, I'd really hope they would tell us.

I'd encourage you to bring it up at the beginning of a meeting one day.  Simply tell everyone that you're not comfortable with some of the adult language and negativity.  Don't single anyone out or give examples unless asked.  Simply ask the group to tone down the language.  If you did that in our troop, everyone would spend the next few minutes acting sheepishly and feeling bad they'd made you feel uncomfortable.

Maybe there's someone you have to talk to offline - but I'm guessing if you keep it positive and make the ask folks will get the message.  I like doing it at the start of a meeting so that you're not correcting something from this meeting - but setting the tone for how you'd hope we act going forward.

HI @desertrat77 & @69RoadRunner,

I fully acknowledge that there are lots of Scouters who get their beads and then walk around like self appointed experts.  There are many, many more who do not. 

Scouters come from a wide array of backgrounds and there are numerous archetypes.  I try not to make fun on them in my posts.  I just seems to me like it's considered good sport for some reason to make fun of the WB'ers - so much so, that it's considered the "thing to do" to make fun of the WBers. It's like they're the OK group to kick around.  Feels like folks do to them the exact same kind of thing you all accuse them of doing. 

Again - I mean no disrespect by it and don't want to hijack the topic on the point.  I just mention it because I really just think that it's considered so OK to make fun of them that I don't even think folks give it a second thought.

8 hours ago, PACAN said:

Momleader..I don't see anyone that doesn't want to help the scout with his drug issue.

The issue the OP is asking about is should a scout engaging in criminal behavior get a pass to Eagle rank. His feeling is no and so if he doesn't personally feel he can sign his application or have a SMC,  there is a Disputed EBOR procedure for that process to occur. 

Maybe there should be a process where the scout can be given an extension until he gets himself straightened out and then hold the EBOR???

 

 

 

I think part of the discussion here is whether there really is a place for Scouters to reject a Scout for Eagle rank.  While I know we all hold the rank in very high esteem - it appears that the BSA doesn't want us to do that.  Short of the scout spirit requirement, I couldn't find anything in the Guide to Advancement that says we should reject Eagle candidates because of an action like this.

So - perhaps there's an unwritten code here - but, it seems likely to be a question of wide opinions.

57 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Camporees have changed over the years. 

When I was a scout, camporees/freezerees were held in wild, open spaces.  Bring your own "everything."  Nothing provided.  Campsites far apart.   Plenty of time to sit around the fire, work on camping skills, explore the forest/prairie/desert, shoot the breeze, take a nap, etc.

I don't find camporees enjoyable today.  Common characteristics:

- Troops are directed to camp too close together

- Almost always held at a council property (same place you've been a bunch of times)

- Over-reliance on established shower/latrine facilities

- Sometimes meals are provided by camporee staff (hard to fathom but true)

- Daily schedule crammed with the same old boring events, and almost zero free time

- [From darn near every camporee package] "NO CAMPFIRES, NO SHEATH KNIVES!" [Two important cornerstones of the old BSA!]

I oversaw a camporee a couple years ago.  I purposely left out dozens of "thou shalt/shalt nots" from the package.  Our committee set forth five fun, challenging events.  Otherwise, scouts and scouters, the time is yours.  Feedback was good.

Kudos on the great camporee.  I've found in our district that they are begging for people to lead camporee planning.  I know our district camping committee would welcome a camporee just like you describe.  Huge props for organizing it.

59 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Memory:  A WBer approached me Friday night. 

WBer:  "It's almost time for the cracker barrel."

Me:  "Yes..." [Waiting for the other boot to fall]

WBer:  "When are you planning on sending a runner to the troops to remind them?"

Me:  "I'm not.  They have the schedule and they know how to tell time.  I trust them."

WBer silently strolled away.

SMs and SPLs showed up right on time.

 

Nice story and good point.  I most respectfully just wonder why the need to keep make it at the expense of WB folks.  There's 10 posts around here critical of people who have taken WB for every one supportive of it.