qwazse

Sounds like you're talking about my buddy, the best scout I ever knew, who aged out at 2nd class! Of his many accomplishments, the one nearest to my heart was that he asked me to join his troop! (This was back in the days when packs -- at least ours -- had zero transition from Webelos to Boy Scouts.)

SN, although CoD has been operating in fits and starts over the past few years, so have most VOA's. As with everything with youth this age, there's room for optimism as long as they keep coming through the door. (Or, going out the door on the way to a super service project or activity!) But, more importantly, we as advisors need to be encouraging. "Here's a challenge for you: pontentially personally rewarding, high likelihood it will never get off the ground. Do you want to give it a go?" Then, hope that VOA presidents start taking over the promotion. It's just like the chief in the O/A circle stopping in front of a candidate and saying "Do you wish to seek the arrow?" But here's the deal: we know that there are young men and women like E441 who will pursue the sort of thing. So the question regarding the O/A is not a matter of fairness, like jpTex is posing. Rather, it's a matter of market share ... Should the OA continue its current somewhat arbitrary policy and risk losing the contributions, if not outright membership of a few high energy youth to start-ups who will let them participate with their sisters and girlfriends?

It's like we have an evil twin crew!!! My co-advisor collected the paperwork and walked it to council HQ herself, just as Stosh described. No offense to the DE's in the audience, but of the things that hamper the start of new units, pros that think they're doing thier job by gaking more one day to reply to a CO or IH top the list.

I hate articles like these on a very visceral level. If you're really doing what Jesus did, you would physically and mentally be right down at rock bottom. No room for smugness in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nobody ever taught you about sacred cows, did they? Yes, some troops get together and do these kinds of things. Love it when they do, but the leaders get lots of flack if they even suggest replicating it on a grander level. GS love their troops (by-and-large age based patrols). BS love bringing every boy under one roof. They seem very far away from a unified organization.

I forgot about CoD! Thanks for the reminder. As always with things in the beginning, it is a little ambiguous about how this distinguishes a youth who is part of CoD from one who puts her heart and soul into her VOA and never bothers with CoD.

Our SM went as dad (dress shirt and tie): CM was MoC, two ASMs (actually SM emeritus) talked about the meaning of Eagle Scout and recollected the boy's scouting carreer, and I lead the Eagle charge. If you have the depth use it. Actually, (personal preference here) your boys could do each of those. If they're attending in sufficient numbers and are appropriately gifted, use those gifts.

Regarding uniforms, I understand that you are talking about the National field uniform. But, that $40 translates into two mornings with a climbing guide on some very challenging rocks just north of town. For a youth who probably already has a (boy/girl) scout uniform, fireman/EMT gear, their military uni (which is to take precedence at any formal scouting function anyway), and possibly a wife -- and baby on the way: why would I want him put his money in a shirt that he won't be wearing?

Well, I think this is where we do you youth a disservice. We've dissected "honor" from leadership. VOA should not be a mere leadership position. Every advisor should encourage the best members in their crew (even if they aren't officers) to contribute time to the VOA. They should really be an integral part of their council -- advising on everything from infrastructure to service projects, fundraisers and camporees .... Simply put, the best venturers, to be of better use to their crew, need to devote some time to hanging out with the best venturers of other crews and exchanging notes. The ideal VOA president would touch base with the Lodge chief from time to time. IMHO those are the two youth should be the most highly regarded in every council.

Understood, but E92 pointed out that OA may have boys who no longer are members of a troop, but since their BSA membership is current, by virtue of being in a crew or ship, they are still in the Order. Now maybe this is administrative oversight, or maybe noone wants to challenge a boy who went through his ordeal shows up and serves at meetings and conclaves and can pull a current membership card out of his pocket. But, it undermines the notion that the order exist solely so a boy could better serve his troop.

Here's a concept: why not have the boys do all of the planning? Adults arrange transport etc... Have the DL sit in the corner and tally advancement, or knit or something. Ask the boys if they are up for it and go from there.

Lessee ... $50 uniform ... $10 activity shirt and $40 in under armor, or a utility shirt and custom necker (full size, suitable for trading internationally) ... or a down-payment on your chain-mail. (Or matriculation deposit for college.) When it ain't your folk's money or their bills anymore, the equation changes. Wait! Hasn't anyone told you about the Venturing Leadership Awards? That's a fairly elite club. A broader group: Venturing Officers Associations. They are recommended by their advisors and elected by their peers. (Also, VOA's and have "OA" in the acronym. No sash, but epaulets are silver for council officers or gold for area and regional officers.)

Had one MC refuse to get a uniform. And to a point I agree. There's nothing that a committee should be doing that would require them to be in uniform. However, CC's often do find themselves at roundtables and such and sometimes it is handy to be able to find that guy with the same patch on his sleeve. If you're that kind of CC, then maybe you want to have a different shirt. Otherwise, someone trying to be sincerely helpful may see you with your cub uni and direct your to the wrong room when it's your night to be in the break-out session for troops. If that kind of thing doesn't bother you, stick with the cub uniform. Otherwise, has anybody ever tried gluing the blue epaulets inside the green ones so you could just flip from "Pack" to "Troop"?

Agree with BD -- unless there's a kid who's going downhill fast. (E.g., since leaving cubs, folks passed away, he moved in with relatives in a different neighborhood, not making friends. You might want to offer his den to him as a way to reconnect with some old friends.) Otherwise, if the kids are having fun elsewhere, let them. And really, if you don't know what the families are doing already, there's something wrong with your community. You should have already crossed paths with these families at a parade, carnival, or the local pool. If you can't help yourself, a dozen post-cards saying "Missed seeing you at the Pack this year. Our next meeting is ... Why not stop by?" won't break the bank. Fact is, for your effort, you'd probably have more success inviting boys who've never tried the program to give it a go for a year.

Had a great weekend comparing notes with some boys who were raised in the Czech Republic. Because scouting was outlawed during the cold war, their movement has a dearth of senior scouters. Den chief age youth operate as den leaders. Merit badge counselors: no such thing. Scoutmasters: 1 for 96 youth. The parents are hoping for the next generation will have more parents involved. From the enthusiasm of the boys, however, I kinda hope not. First thing they asked about my scouts' unis: where are your neckers?

Bring us back to why we should like the BSA (or not) ... "First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA, only about 73-76% of the population self-identifies as Christian. So in the classroom, FotS would only apply to three-quarters of the students. What about the other 25%? You'd have to tell them that it doesn't apply to them, since they're not Christian. You would effectively be telling them that those ideals are not for them So what are you tell them to aspire to?" Putting aside how many Christians actually have a clue about the Fruit of the Spirit (let alone it's context or that it is singular) and that it may possibly apply to them as they build their communities (a much smaller figure than DW's generous count above) .... There are probably far fewer people who have said the Scout Law even once. Certainly not most women (not even our Venturers, yet). So, much less than 50%. How popular does an institution have to be before it becomes part of of an American school student's lexicon? I've heard the occasional public speaker refer to it. Membership statistics aside, has it become a bit of a national Icon? So much so, that if the institution continues its decline, will it be an inexorable part of our history books? Or is it just a blip on the radar of progress?

What you call anger, I'll take as a sincere attempt to save us from ourselves. Anyway, after making that snarky remark about "Sunday reading" I log off to go to church, and what chapter of the Bible is the preacher covering today? Yep, Ephesian's 5! So DW is simply doing God's work preparing me to receive his word today. For that I owe him thanks. Anyone who thinks otherwise can take it up with the Holy Spirit!

Thanks for the Sunday reading. Do zealots take things out of context? Yes. Am I a zealot? I don't think so. I have some vague familiarity with the law and Pauline epistles. In the passage you quote Paul is not excluding the pagans of his day from anything. Rather, he is dissuading folks from "playing the Jew" in hopes that a simple surgery will make them right with God. Or, that it would somehow make them a better Christians than those who aren't Jewish enough. Those many divisions you speak of were fomenting before Paul even started dictating his letters. But, your desire to put tremendous theological weight on the chapter blinds you to the overarching theme, that is "Y'all are reading my letter 'cause you believed Jesus payed a hefty price for you. Now why can't y'all be nice? Who's gonna complain about that?" It is NOT saying that non-Christians can't be nice. That's a liberal reading of the passage. And yes, my fundamentalist friends often don't like it when I accuse them of taking liberties with scripture.

Oh, I get the whole manipulative boys who were trained by manipulative parents thing. There's a balance between discouraging those types, and crushing someone who wades through 22 pages of workbook and misses a step on page 17! (Granted, council approval is mentioned in the BSHB, but what does that really mean to a 17y.o. who has never been to a roundtable?)

Winds ... it had to be winds ... It doesn't take much to "up the game". You and an ASM a could chaperon a patrol to some camping area or farm with maybe some good fishing nearby. You and your buddy could drop them off and then set up on the opposite side of the field. Put that out there to your son's PL. Don't use any of those "boy-led", "patrol method", "counts for advancement" buzzwords. Just give him a "Hey, you've been such a help to my son, I'd like to give you a chance to do something you can brag about to the rest of the troop. Why don't you float it by the SM?"

T2E, the counter-reformation is a grand part of that tradition. I'm sure some of the church board members think it's their turn to bring it about again! SMW, don't write off those travelling pastors. By virtue of their having moved around a lot, they can bring a truly catholic perspective to the picture. This summer, at an Eagle court of honor, I met one of the priests of a local Catholic CO. He was from Vietnam and had some unique scouting experiences as a child. I hope the troop will give him more opportunities to share in their program. The point is that for some people, you have to say "I talked to Father ___ and Bishop ___, about this very thing, and we're going a long with his suggestions." On one level, it's stupid. You and your committee have are smart people, and should be able to say that you all thought about it, and whatever policy you came up with made the most sense based on the teachings of the Church. (It's not like they are locked in a closet someplace.) But, some people won't regard your decision until a holy man is involved.

To avoid seeming like cannibals, some also punctuate well. Let's eat, Grandma!

"EDGE is a teaching skill, but if the boy only teaches because he gains advancement, what's the big deal?" Resist. Resist. Resist. Can't do it ... EDGE undermines servant leadership from step 1. Explain. This presumes that you have something someone else can't get any other way. Now, that does happen from time to time. (For example for some fundamental process, you may come up with an English acronym that nobody else knows of and your Korean scout can't figure out!) In terms of scout skills, that simply isn't the case. Servant leadership says, "Let's find a common reference. Do you have your book?" and works from there. It encourages a person to believe that skill attainment is in the learner's own hand[book]s. It promises community with a wider body than just the teacher and student. When that community falls short (perhaps because the student doesn't read well or the publisher confounded the material -- at least for this individual), it offers the more intimate fellowship to step through the reference together. The first step to using the advancement program for the purposes of develop servant leadership is to abandon EDGE and provide your boys with the teaching method that lifted the West out of the Dark Ages.

I think, stosh, what's happening is that more venturers are actually getting involved with their summer camps. Those that express interest see how the OA does a bang-up job of giving back to their camps, and they want to be part of that. Or they are Arrowmen who know a guy or gal and are thinking "This is great, why can't they be here too?"

Easy E441, dhendron paid good money for that VLST course. He has to get his money's worth! Venturers (who were never were officially "venture scouts," and were once-upon-a-time Explorers more interested in outdoor stuff than career exploration) want to be respected for who they are. What that means varies widely. Some (like evidently the ones you met) want to be in OA, others want to be trusted to help serve other BSA units, others don't want boy scouts demeaning the awards they earn, others want to be treated as a different program and don't want anything "scout" associated with them. We adults really do have a tough time figuring it out. Venture patrols, that was easy. I think it was E92 who explained that they were what in our day was called "Leadership Corps". As soon as he did, I got it. We were the older boys in a troop who hopped in a car, found a site, did a service project, camped, cooked some insanely good food, caved, and came back and reported to the SM with a whole list of activities and program for the troop. Sometimes the SM tagged along. It's just an internal name that a troop can use to distinguish those boys. Who knows how many there are, really? But since patrols aren't supposed to overnight without an adult anymore, they are just rogue scouts. I sure do hope there are lots of them!