ParkMan

I don't see why we need to disambiguate Scout here.  If you are a Scout leader and are having a conversation about Scouting, I think you just simply say "we'd like you to visit our Scout troop" or to the parent "I'd like your daughter to visit our Scout troop."  Once you get beyond which set of program materials you use (BSA or GSUSA), it's really about why your troop's program is great anyways.  

If some parent is confused about what kind of Scout troop you have, I think you can launch into the 30 second explanation about how your troop is based on the program of the Boy Scouts of America and what makes that a great program.

We're the largest troop in our district too.  Along with being the largest comes with having a lot of experienced Scouters in out ranks.

I learned along the way that the best way for our district to have better camporees was for our adults to get involved and provide some input.  it's not that our adults need to organize it, but it helps us to see that the camporee is an event we want to participate in if our adults are involved in setting the agenda. 

I realized the hard way that a district is usually more desperate for adult help than our troop is.  It's actually good for us to participate.  I'm guesing this was different 25 years ago when distrcits had 2x or 3x the number of troops, but today with smaller numbers of scouts we have to help out.

1 hour ago, Treflienne said:

Only sort-of.

While they will be in "Scouts BSA" rather than "Boy Scouts",  they will still be boy Scouts (which sounds the same) and part of the Boy Scouts of America.   I expect that people will still be calling them boy Scouts (or Boy Scouts) for years. 

By the way I'm finding it really awkward to need to avoid referring to the girls who will be Scouts as "girl Scouts".   What phrasing rolls off the tongue most easily for you?   Scout girls?  girl Boy Scouts?

When trying to recruit girls and their parents for "Scouts BSA" I am definitely using the name "Boy Scouts" since that is the name that families are already familiar with.

I imagine it will linger for a number of years - perhaps decades.  I wish there were a way to preserve it formally, but alas do understand why not.  

I really have been trying to avoid a gender label so far.  i.e. "Boy Scouts for Girls".  If anything, I simply refer to it as Scouting and I refer to the youth as Scouts.  I've actually dropped the label boys a lot internally.   Instead of saying "the boys" or "the girls", I simply say "scouts" now.

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I disagree with how you're reading into YPT. Requiring a male and female adult at all times for every enclosed space would mean that every Den Chief training and merit badge pow-wow would need a male and female registered adult in every classroom. That would spread resources so thin that it would set up a very predictable situation for a predator to take advantage of.

Again, several teams of commissioners, each made up of the opposite sex, roaming the halls and checking in on classrooms would do more to make sure our youth are safe.

I am really concerned about over-interpreting YPT because I have been in several situations with venturing where it was really important for the adult females to be on elsewhere in camp while a couple of us guys were advising the female youth in a training course. We could hold the fort for an hour or two between visits by the female adults. A couple of men at a camporee station (enclosed or not) visited by a patrol of girls for 15-20 minutes will be in compliance. We really want the commissioners to be on the alert for a single male or female adult giving undue attention to a patrol of youth between stations.

Fair enough.  I was thinking of this like we think of for 2 deep adult supervision while at camp.  If we have 1 adult with a scout in an enclosed space, we require a second.  We don't require adults at all times - just that when it there is one adult, there needs to be a second.  It's not that we think there is a predator around every corner - but that if the policy is 2 deep adult leadership we ought to be in the practice of implementing that.

I'm not looking to be a stickler on the required female over 21 aspect of this.  Not that I want to ignore the rule, but I'm comfortable enough with the checks imposed by two deep adult supervision that having an adult female at the event would be sufficient for me.  I had just interpreted it more strictly and gathered that the two deep rule meant at least 1 female in all cases where two deep was applied in the presence of female youth - but am happy to be wrong here.

53 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

So if you are a troop and you are manning a station or activity at a camporee and you only have male leaders, and a girl patrol saunters up to participate you are saying the troop should have a female leader at the station??

My read is that it would be a question of whether it's enclosed or not.  A station in plain view with others around you'd be fine.  An enclosed structure where two male adults are alone with female youth would be a potential concern.  That's my read on why we have the female over 21 rule in the first place.

I do not agree with this rule - but it's how I'd read it.  I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong.

Nice!  I'm also saddened that we're loosing the name Boy Scouts.

Along the way I realized that the BSA doesn't want to have a program for boys which girls can participate in if they want to.  What they want is a program for boys & girls equally.  When I realized that, I began to understand their decisions.  

For now the official guidance is separate tents and separate bathroom facilities for boys & girls. 

You should also make sure that you're staffed in a way that two-deep adult leadership scenarios include one female leader over 21 - i.e., having two male adult camporee staff alone with a patrol of female scouts from a troop is something to avoid.

Beyond that, treat the troops with girls the same as troops with boys.  There's no requirements to place them in different, separated camp locations.  If you combine multiple troops together in a single site, you may want to consider placing the troops with girls together - but it's not required.

42 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Update with the old troop.

As you all know, I still have friends with them. Heck the SM, an ASM, and I are suppose to be backpacking together in a few weeks. So I am still hearing about them. Last night was the parents meeting about the new policies.

THE PARENTS DON'T GET IT! (emphasis)

Apparently they have concerns about possible first aid situations ( multiple Scouts have FA MB,  several adults have basic FA, 2 have WFA, one adult is a RN and another is a MD, I think they have FA covered). And another does not see why she cannot follow her son around on camp outs just for the day. SHE DOES NOT GET THAT THE OTHER SCOUTS IN THE TROOP DO NOT WANT HER, HER SON, AND OTHER UNTRAINED ADULTS AROUND! (emphasis) while messaging amongst my friends, I reminded them that the son almost  lost his head on the catapult course because he was interfering with the patrol ( mom was there but not watching son) and that her husband violated range rules by coming to a hot firing line without permission. Not to mention the fact that the husband took over the QM's job and completley ignored the Patrol Method or the other adult  countermanding the SPL so that together it took 2 to 3 times as long to set up camp in the rain than it would normally take.

My friends are predicting the two main problem families will leave. They are joking around saying they are going to send them to my new troop.

The unfortunate thing is that one family will probably leave that has not caused problems. Long story short, Mom is extremely protective of her son, and wants dad to camp. Dad is a former Scout, know how things are suppose to be, and when bothered by his son tell him to go see his PL or "Go away you horrible Scout." So dad is basically there to relax and keep Mom happy. with the new rules, he can no longer camp, and Mom is not happy. That family I would not mind coming to my new troop as they have the right attitude: let the son do his thing and not interfere.

Several cans of beer and a bottle of Scotch were opened by my friends once they got home after dealing with the parents. How many times must you do this before it gets through to them. This sis something like the 6th time in an 18 month period. And they still cannot believe the COR got involved in withthis topic this time.

 

 

 

 

I still think your old troop needs to learn how to develop a sense of program and own it. 

In my experience it's unrealistic to expect your average new parent to just "get it" about how Scouting works in a troop.  They want the fun adventures of Scouting and the benefits of Scouting for their son or daughter.  But, most will simply not have the frame of reference to understand how things are designed to run in a troop.

My general belief is that the senior scouters in a troop need to decide how they want to implement patrol method and lead the other Scouters in making that happen.  This will then propagate out to families.  Our troop does that now and we have no policies to enforce it.  We don't have policies because we don't need them.  A new parent shows up and does something wrong, another parent or ASM will helpfully correct them.  Its impossible for someone to really stir things up because we have delegated leadership and people have jobs.  So someone can't come in and do something nutty with new Scouts because we have some new Scout ASMs who have already established a precedent on how things work.  

I feel for your old troop because I get the sense that this doesn't happen.  Instead of a shared vision of how the troop works, it's a question of who speaks last or loudest.

12 hours ago, SSScout said:

HAA !   "It's not like.... Signing away years of your life..."   Only one hour a week....  Ha. 

If Scouting gets ya, it gets ya.   Wood Badge not withstanding.  

That part's very true.  I often think that Scouting's a lifestyle, not an activity.

On the Wood Badge point though - I hear from folks regularly - "I've wanted to go for years, but I'm so busy and can't find the time."  Yet, they'll find the time to go on monthly campouts and help at all kinds of other events.  I 100% respect that people have priorities in their lives and attending Wood Badge may be lower down on the list than many other things.  Yet, I just sometimes think that folks hear "two- three day weekends" and think "oh my goodness, there is no way I could do that."  It's just two weekends.  My biggest concern was not the time - it was explaining to my wife why I wanted to go do Scouting without my son for two weekends.

In further fairness - I do also get that the ticket component is a big time commitment too.  I just rarely hear people say - I won't attend Wood Badge because they don't have time for the ticket.

Ouch!  Sorry to hear that.  We don't have council program fees yet, but I expect to within 5 years.

5 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I don't know really who this person is outside of the brief (and surely cursory) sketch of his background in the announcement.

There's a pretty decent background on his Wikipedia page.

5 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

What exactly has he done to merit this honor? Is this another instance of using a celebrity as a puppet leader to get attention, or does he actually have legitimate Scouting credentials to his name? 

While it is an honor - I don't see it that way.  The WOSM is asking this guy to serve as a worldwide ambassador for Scouting.  Through that work, I am sure they hope to see Scouting take on even more of an identity of as a challenging outdoor program and more kids join.  He's been doing the role in the UK since 2009.

Maybe it's not real - but at least they're making a push to equate Scouting with outdoor adventure.  Would love to see the BSA do something similar with some well known celebs here in the US.

53 minutes ago, qwazse said:

You describe a pure hypothetical, and one that simply does not apply based on facts in evidence. Every event that @CodyMiller351 described made it clear that two or more 21+ers were present.  It's also a problem if they take the boys pistol-shooting, or quad riding, or if they go swimming without qualified supervision. There's a laundry list of such pitfalls a troop -- especially a very small one -- should avoid, but if it looks like the troop is being compliant, bringing up such a list doesn't address any imminent problem.

The imminent problem is an adult who doesn't want to step in line. Honestly, I don't think that has much to do with the young 1st ASM. I think this has to do with a dad who is insecure about how to take care of his boy and how to relate to others, so he is trying to carve out his niche in this group and do things "just so" for the sake of his personal comfort. Most of us have witnessed this in one form or another.

This matches my understanding top.  The troop is doing a diligent job of following the rules as described above.  If not, of course that's a problem - while there are many "shoulds" in Scouting, the adult supervision requirements as "must" rules.  I get the sense that they are following the rules as required.

I too think the primary issue here is an adult who would be difficult for anyone to manage.  With this kind of person, perhaps an older Scoutmaster might make the adult less likely to push his agenda - but again, perhaps not.  We've seen countless topics about similar adults in other settings.

I think I'd encourage a few things here.

1) be a strong leader.  Make decisions and stick to them.  I've seen this work with adults with strong personalities.  They'll push if they can.

2) have a plan for your role.  Make decisions that advance your plan.  Adults respect adults with a thought out plan.  Sometimes adults like this do what they do because they think it's needed.  Likewise they'll back off once they realize there's a bigger plan in play.

3) be prepared t explain "why".  Hey Bob, I respect that you're trying to help the Scouts get ready, but part of being a Scout led troop is the boys working as a patrol to solve problems together.  When we clear the way for them, they are less likely to need to solver problems and learn.

25 minutes ago, PACAN said:

In the Guide to Safe Scouting, there are actually very few things that are listed as a reason to revoke a Scout's membership, and most of them relate to violence:

"All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence, hazing, bullying, theft, verbal insults, and drugs and alcohol have no place in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout’s membership in the unit."

In reality you will likely get no support from anyone up the chain to revoke membership up to and including national even if the scout is arrested, lies to the police, his parents and his EBOR.  He will still be given his rank.   

So since you feel strongly about this don't have a SMC or sign his Eagle application and let the process in the Guide to Advancement run it's course.  If that results in you needing to move on, come over to our unit.

We don't expect any personal responsibility and accountability from the youth any longer.  The BSA uses the word "may" not "will".   The scout being bullied is the one who leaves the program not the other way around. 

I think you have to separate membership in a troop vs. membership in the Boy Scouts of America.

A troop is not a subdivision of the BSA.  The troop is owned by the chartered organization.  As long as membership decisions are not discriminatory, a unit can pretty much ask anyone to leave that they want to.  If they feel a Scout isn't someone who they think should remain in the troop, they can ask him to leave.  The council may push back, but it's not their call.  The only person "up the chain" from the Troop Committee is the Chartered Organization Rep and then the Institutional Head.  As long as they are in support, you're good to go.

The question of whether to revoke membership in the BSA is another question entirely.  It also isn't something that probably ought to matter to the unit itself.  Revoking membership in the BSA is up to the Council & National.  If they want someone who has been accused of using and distributing drugs in school to continue in the Boy Scouts of America, that's their decision.  But, they'll have to help the kid find another unit to continue in.

To me, a unit that removes a scout for this reason is setting a pretty clear line for personal responsibility.  However, letting the youth continue, but trying to bar him from advancing seems like a much less clear statement.  

As long as Grandpa really serving as "Supervising Scoutmaster", this seems legit to me.  I gather that Grandpa is checking on decisions and making sure YPT rules are being followed.  It strikes me that this is a reason the BSA has the 21 and older rule.  So, as long as Grandpa is fulfilling those functions - this seems legit to me.  However, to @David CO's point - I do hope the IH, COR, and CC are all on board with this.

In terms of dealing with other adults, I'd want a clear statement of how this works.  Asking a 30+ year old adult to follow the direction of a younger adult is fine - it happens all the time in life.  However, there cannot be any ambiguity here.  If some adults think @CodyMiller351 isn't really in charge it creates a very difficult situation that is ultimately unfair to @CodyMiller351,

6 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I keep going back and forth on attending.  In fact my current line of thought is that I'm not going to attend and even leaning in the direction of finishing out and after my Den completed and is awarded Wolf I am going to be finished myself.  I have it seems bought into the notion everyone has to go through WB to be a good leader.  If i can't do it I might as well quit now.

Wood Badge, like all training, simply provides the opportunity to learn more about being a leader in the BSA.  There are many leaders who have never taken it that do a fantastic job.  

Take Wood Badge because you find it interesting, are hoping to learn some new skills, or simply just want to.  Don't ever think you have to.

If you want to attend - attend.  If you don't want to attend - don't.  It's a fun experience and in the grand scheme of things is only two weekends.  It's not like you're attending college and signing away years of your life.

As Scouters, I don't think recourse here isn't to deny the kid a Scoutmaster conference.  The BSA rules seem pretty clear that we as leaders cannot do that.  

If a Scout conducts himself outside of Scouting so poorly that his character and fitness to achieve the rank of Eagle is called into question, then I think the troop needs to ask the Scout to leave the troop.  If the troop continues to allow a youth to participate in Scouting who the Scoutmaster does not believe is worthy of achieving a rank, that seems unfair to the Scout and his family.  We'll allow you to participate, camp with us, hold positions of leadership, pay dues, etc. but not achieve a rank?

Honestly - I think you all meet as a troop committee and decide whether the youth continues or not.  If you allow him to continue, then I think you continue to guide him as he progresses towards Eagle.  If you find him of enough character to continue, but still find his actions distasteful - tell him that.  But, don't penalize him.  The puts you as leaders in a difficult position where you now have to arbitrate worthiness for the rank.  Didn't I read that some Scouts want to return their Eagles because they don't think he should get one?  Marijuana is bad, but consuming alcohol is OK?  Or, maybe marijuana is OK, but just not at school?  Or maybe marijuana at school is OK, but not if he gives or sells it to friends.  These seems like dangerous waters and ones that lead to politics and internal hurt.

I've got no problem if you say - "a youth who brings drugs to school with intent to distribute" can no longer be trusted around the other youth in the troop  That's a very appropriate response.  Not everyone will agree - but that's a fair question of policy for a Scoutmaster or troop committee to decide.  After all, the Scoutmaster has to sign the youth applications indicating his willingness to accept the Scout into the unit.  If the Scoutmaster no longer has confidence in the youth - then ask him to leave.

9 hours ago, MattR said:

Yes, but, why is it that the scouts have such a hard time communicating?

It may be easy to actually send the words but someone has to figure out what the words are, the best time to send them, respond to questions, etc. What are the salient points in the PLC meeting that need to be sent out? To be honest I see very few scouts that can do this. I don't see many adults that can do this. We have a secretary at our committee meetings. Scribe is just a title, communication is the task.

My hunch is that when Scouts don't communicate it's for one of a few reasons:
1) they don't need to
2) they don't think they need to
3) they are waiting for someone else to do it

What I tend to see happen is that the leader communicates decisions made and assignments.  A good leader ought to be taking some notes so that he knows who is doing what.  Minutes from a PLC meeting or patrol meeting end up really just being the SPL's or patrol leader's notes with some clean up.  Having a Scout who's job it is to write down the same information seems like extra work with the technology we have today.  Back when these things had to be typed up, photocopied, distributed, etc. it was different as it required real work.  Today the leader simply sends out a quick summary to the team.  When you insert a scribe into this process, you end up making it more complicated for the leader - he's got to go chase the scribe to get the info sent out.  What if the scribe remembered something different or was wrong?  Is it really worth that hassle?

I do see a need for a troop scribe to handle general marketing and communications stuff.  I also see a need for a troop scribe to keep track of things like attendance (though I'm not a big fan of tracking attendance).  It's also a good role for keeping the troop calendar up to date.
 

13 minutes ago, CodyMiller351 said:

I am curious, how many boys do you need for the patrol method to work?  Right now my troop has 3 boys so we really don't use the patrol method since it wouldn't really work.  I want to get back to the point where we have multiple patrols but it's going to take some time?  

I think that patrol method can work with just one patrol.  As I see it, the patrol method is really about the boys working together as a team as they go through Scouting.  The boys learn to work as a team, set their own direction based on some high level goals,  develop leadership skills making their goals happen & getting stuff done, learn to rely on others, and in the process develop some pretty great friendships.   

All of those things that can happen with 3 boys.  So, in your troop it's not that you don't use the patrol method.  Instead, you just have a troop with one patrol.

I see a scribe as something of a historical role.  Now that communication is so easy, having someone dedicated to it is probably less important.  Our troop committee chair sends out meeting notices and takes minutes - we've gotten away from having a recording secretary.  It would seem reasonable for a patrol to do the same.

What I see as important here is that the patrol operates as a self sufficient team.   The patrol leader is not a den leader who organizes things for the patrol members.  It's a group of Scouts who work together to accomplish things.  I agree that it's beneficial to give each member a role and some ownership.  It would seem entirely reasonable for a patrol to decide on the roles it thinks it needs.  Along with that, the SPL needs to hold the PL accountable for making sure stuff gets done.   In turn, the PL needs to hold that patrol accountable.  So, if one function of the patrol scribe is recording attendance, if there is no patrol scribe the PL and patrol needs to figure out who does that.

16 hours ago, SCCMatthew said:

Hello all,

I can't seem to find the answer to this anywhere so this may be more of an opinion based question. 

As far as I know prior to the official Seabadge "knot", many unofficial ones were created. Some Scouter's continue to wear the unofficial ones produced by Scouters such as Craig Murray that look a lot cleaner and more consistent. My question is, would it be considered "stolen valor" to wear an unofficial Seabadge "knot" if you take the program after the official ones were discontinued? I don't see it looked down upon for Scouters to wear them from prior to when an official "knot" was made, but what about after the official "knot" was discontinued? 

As I said, since we're dealing with unofficial insignia this is a very opinion and taste based question, but I'm wondering what your opinions are.

YiS

It's been so long since the official knot was discontinued that I think it's the effectively like back in the old days.

5 hours ago, MattR said:

@Eagle94-A1, this is what I'm trying to solve. It's not just the SM/SPL, it could be scouts from another patrol walking in and disturbing an activity. The scouts don't understand that interruptions need to be dealt with. They just go with it, lose all sense of time and don't realize what's happening. They really do own their destiny.

I'd think this would be good for a new patrol leader to train on.  Some things that come to mind are:

- it would be good for them to understand the core responsibilities of a patrol in a few basic scenarios - a camping trip & a troop meeting.  Just what is it that a patrol is supposed to do?

- get them to work on prioritizing their patrol's goals and then work with the patrol members to accomplish them.  Have them work through interruptions to get back on task.

Further - I think it would be good to get them to start thinking about how leading and managing are different.   Get the wheels turning on why being a patrol leader is more than simply taking charge at meetings and getting stuff done.

I thought it useful to go back to the Guide to Advancement.

Quote

From 8.0.1.2 What Should Be Discussed

A Scout may be asked where he learned his skills and who taught him, and what he gained from fulfilling selected requirements. The answers will reveal what he did for his rank. It can be determined, then, if this was what he was supposed to do. Discussion of how he has lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in his home, unit, school, and community should be included. We must remember, however, that though we have high expectations for our members, as for ourselves, we do not insist on perfection. A positive attitude is most important, and that a young man accepts Scouting’s ideals and sets and meets good standards in his life.

12 minutes ago, cocomax said:

What if Girl Scouts started a Boys program called   Scouts GSUSA.  . . .

Then you saw flyers and videos and people talking about boys could now join Boy Scouts GSUSA units. 

Parents begin thinking Boy Scouts had join forces with with Girls Scouts to form something new called Scouts GSUSA.

When you call out that it is not cool that they are using the term Boy Scouts, because that belongs to the BSA they would say. . .

"Oh, no we are Scouts GSUSA! Sorry about the confusion, we will send out a powerpoint slide to tell everyone not to say Boy Scouts GSUSA."

. . . then parents, the general public,  and kids continue to call the new units of boys in Scouts GSUSA  "Boy Scouts" and you end up with units in the BSA and GSUSA both being called "Boy Scouts" by the general public. . .

     Would BSA have any problem with that?

   

 

Not sure - but I'd hope not.  

Unless this lawsuit is just a warning shot to remind the BSA not to try and co-opt the term Girl Scouts, I find it very hard to believe this lawsuit is really about the brand confusion.  How many people really get duped into joining the wrong unit.  Other than a few instances of the really clueless, do folks really accidentally sign up for Cub Scouts when they thought that they wanted Daisies or Brownies?  

I think this is really "West Cola" telling "East Cola" not to use the term Cola in the west.

My other thought it that this has nothing to do with stopping the BSA, but instead delaying things.  Imagine if there is an injunction preventing the BSA from using the terms "Scouts BSA" or "Scouts" at all for anything to do with girls for the next 3-5 years while lawsuits work through the courts.  In the spring, no more "Scout Me In" and instead it's the BSA promoting "join our leadership and outdoor educational program for girls"

3 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Possibly Bourbon may be a good example

If it is produced in the USA, made from a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn, aged in new, charred oak containers, distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof (80% alcohol by volume),  entered into the barrel for aging at no more than 125 proof (62.5% alcohol by volume), bottled (like other whiskeys) at 80 proof or more (40% alcohol by volume) it can be called Bourbon.

Do the same thing in Canada, guess it is called whiskey.  It's all in the name though the product is or could be identical

Also as this suit may drag on, the use of bourbon (or whiskey) may help many of us endure.  

Hah - now I'm going to see the word Scouts and think Bourbon.