Sentinel947

Frogg Toggs are not good gear for Scouts, but could be for Adults. Youth will shred them. I use Frogg toggs for trips where the threat of rain is minimal. One should carry a sewing kit or a needle and floss to stick up the rips that will inevitably happen in frogg toggs. Or Duct tape. You'll likely need it with Frogg Toggs.

I mostly use just a rain coat. I find the sweat and extra heat from the rain pants is rarely worth it. If I was going on a trip with a lot of rain in the forecast I'd bring rain pants, but on most trips I leave them at home and have rarely regretted it. 

14 hours ago, MattR said:

Put another way, if scouting can't figure out how to work in these places then I think scouting has become irrelevant. And it's not because parents don't care for character development, it's that the current program is all twisted out of shape from what it started as. Didn't scouting start for kids in cities? To me it seems that the target group of kids are those in suburbs.

Scandals are a part of the decline. Cost is another. The cost factor combines with another: it's a program reliant on unpaid volunteers in a time where more and more parents have to work outside the home. Particularly in lower income communities, this double effect puts Scouting in a position where it's hard to operate. 

I don't see a solution to that. I have even less confidence the BSA can fix it, but simplifying and reducing the cost of the program is a good place to start. 

While they add another merit badge (agree with @dkurtenbach, not sure that's the best way to address it) can they finally throw us a bone and consolidate the Citizenship badges?  

16 hours ago, elitts said:

While I suppose I could be wrong in this case, this type of language is usually code for: "Gay people shouldn't be allowed". (and occasionally "Christians only)

I prefer to let people explain themselves rather than jump to conclusions, but your hunch was correct in this case. 

9 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

 If Scouting would reinstate the mandate that every member MUST follow the Scout Oath and Law.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Can you provide some details about when the BSA said that Scouts don't have to follow the Scout Oath and Law?

There is an irony that BP is going to be torn down in England, where his most positive contribution to humanity was made, while his burial site in Kenya (close to where he likely did commit a war crime by modern standards executed a prisoner that was considered too risky to move), he's celebrated with a National Park. 

BP wasn't perfect. He naively tried to pursue relationships with Nazi Germany in order to bring the Hitler Youth into the World Wide Scouting movement. He was definitely a player in the brutal suppression of southern Africans into the British Empire. 

The statue to BP in Poole is also modest. It's an endorsement and nod to his founding of Scouting, which is his largest accomplishment, and a positive one at that. It's not a celebration of his military service. 

I'd like to see it stay, but by the critics logic, there will be no public statues of any historical figures in the UK, since their history is stained with blood and imperialist riches. 

NYLT's true value is less in any of the particular leadership skills taught, and more in the Scouts having a chance to live in a model troop, and practice practical leadership among themselves in a setting where the Scouts don't carry the social weight from their old troops. All the social hierarchies from their home troop is temporarily erased. The leadership skills taught at NYLT are the icing on top so to speak. 

National has directed that there will be no online NYLT. So keep an eye out for a fall course. My council is tentatively planning one, but no news yet. 

13 hours ago, elitts said:

I suspect this is simply a hopeful delusion.  Lawyers have been trying to do this same thing with Catholic diocese for the last decade or so and still haven't managed to pierce that veil.  And i don't think anyone would argue that the Vatican has control over the assignment of priests and bishops.

The Vatican is a sovereign nation. It's very difficult for individuals to sue foreign countries. As far as my understanding goes, the highest in the Church the lawyers can reach is the diocese themselves, maybe the National US Bishops conference. 

10 hours ago, thrifty said:

It's my understanding that LEC contacted our metroparks and they did not have the funds either.  I could not find the email or facebook post where I read this but am confident in what I read.  Scouts aren't using the camps.  I don't see how giving the camp away helps the council or the scouts.  If attendance at the camp was active, the camp would have been profitable.  It also doesn't make much business sense to me to have two council camps requiring resources that are within fifteen minutes of each other. 

Yea, we were lucky that this was in the 90's, and the metropark had the funds to buy. It won't work out everywhere. If the council cannot afford the camp, it needs to be sold or go back to it's original owner. 

55 minutes ago, yknot said:

These camps were often gifted or earned through blood, sweat and tears of prior generations. Their loss is incalculable. Frankly, a better steward would have found a way to make sure the property remained close to its original use. There are plenty of opportunities to work with conservancies, land trusts, or government agencies to recoup some funds but still keep the property accessible to the scouts or the public or at least keep it from being developed. Our scout LNT or OE directives, even if not explicit, should at least encourage our actions in those directions. 

When my council absorbed a nearby struggling council in the 90's, the struggling council's camp was considered redundant, and had not been hosting summer camps for a few years anyways. It was decided to give/sell it to the local metropark system under the agreement that they would waive the usage fee for Scout groups. Today it is a beautiful and oft used public park. My favorite parts to visit is the old camp outdoor chapel which is still standing, as well as the transplanted Oak Tree from Gilwell Park. 

30 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

I still think that we the original principals of BP, Hillcourt, Beard, or any of the other founders, we should accept and employ them all. Corporate leadership, community leadership, military leadership, and McDonalds leadership are all similar, but very unique at the same time.  Boy Scout leadership mimics military leadership as long as it is allowed.  To be successful the leader is given responsibility as well as authority.  One without the other is useless.  Many adults refuse to recognize this in light of liability. As far as positive personal development, that is up to the individual. Scouting has become encumbered with rules, regulations, policies, directives and "you can't do that's " that it is very challenging to have fun and let the boys be themselves.  Either past ideas are relevant or they are not.  With all of the academic development, teaching methodology,  the implied necessity that character development is the purpose of the BSA there is no time for fun.  The lesson plans that are in place for adults are more in line with something that Ford or ATT is looking for and is far removed from what is needed for successful Scout leaders.  Again, the proof is in the pudding or perhaps the sludge.

Proof of what exactly? What's the sludge?

I think we are talking past one another here. 

With a few exceptions, this forum is filled with Scouters who have given years, decades, multiple decades of service to Scouts and Scouting. There is much wisdom and experience here. By being on this forum, looking to learn and looking to help teach others, most posters help to give others the knowledge and tools needed to make our Troops successful. I learned a ton from forum members here. I've had my opinions and knowledge challenged and refined, and also grown to see that my Troop does some things really well, and some things pretty poorly. The BSA training is only as good as it's instructors, and the literature can be hit or miss. A web forum is a hard place to make a clear point. Especially since we are often times placing context into other people's writings based on our own experiences. I do my best, (but often fail) to try to read other peoples posts and interpret it with the most charitable interpretation I can think of. 

I love the Hillcourt quote @HelpfulTracks posted. Boys and girls join Scouting (not just the BSA) because it's supposed to be fun. It's an adventure. The ScoutHand books for a long time have had a letter from the author the CSE promising as much.  A Troop that fails to deliver that promise is a failing Troop. However, Scouting does have a purpose beyond being fun and having adventures. One of Scouting's purposes was always to develop citizenship and character. 

Much of that is inherently built into the program. Scouts are in patrols, the patrols have leaders, they are supposed to lead themselves with adults removing themselves from the picture as much as possible. The patrol working together on an outing, or in an activity is a majority of the citizenship, character, leadership training. 

That being said, adults have a role to play. Clarke Green over at ScoutmasterCG.com summarizes it better than I ever could, using BP's own words. So I'll leave that to him. https://scoutmastercg.com/b-ps-blog-the-scoutmaster/ . There can be a time and place for a teachable moment between an adult and a Scout. There could be a time for instruction and education in leadership theory, but this is rare. Theory is only good when one has practical experience to compare against the theory and to apply the theory to. This applies to adults too. Developing strong leaders in education, business, government and the military is mostly about role models, peer interaction and mentorship. It's only a tiny bit of theory and formal education. 

There's no one size fits all approach to Scoutmastership. Each unit is going to be different, each Scout is going to have different needs. Each group will require different approaches. The question we should always be asking ourselves as Troop leaders is "Are we furthering our mission?" Followed closely by "Is this fun?" Followed lastly by "Is this effective?" 

Unfortunately since B-P's day, laws around minors have changed, parents expectations have changed, and the liability lawyers lurk waiting to pounce and fatten their wallets. Within these changing rules and expectations, I still think there is room to run a program that meets the spirit of BP's intent, even if it's not always possible to follow the prescribed methods. Still use the patrol method. Still separate the patrols as much is possible within the space confines. Do provide the required adult supervision, but that supervision needs to be in their own space, observing, and only intervening when needed for health and safety, or called upon by the youth leaders. 

26 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So what will the fee be for 18 to 20 year old ASSISTANT Scoutmasters?

This communication makes it seem like they've backed off eliminating programming for Adults 18-20. "Participants in Kindergarten through age 20." 

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Saw the same thing

Last week, the Boy Scouts of America announced that the annual membership fee for youth and young adult participants will increase from $60 to $66 effective August 1, 2020.

If they are getting rid of the 18-20 year old youth participant category, then what is a "Young Adult participant"? Aren't there just going to be youth and adults? 

10 minutes ago, ARH said:

The PBGC will not pay what was owed to the employee unless the pension was fully funded (not likely given the COVID market crash) and the recipient was retirement eligible at the time of default.  The PBGC pays me about 65% of what I would have gotten without my employer defaulting - my pension fund was 86% funded and I was 25 years into my career, so not retirement eligible at the time of default.  The other nugget is that PBGC payments are fixed - once you start drawing your pension, they will never go up.  Also, the PBGC is not exactly financially robust, either.

 

Welcome! Thanks for the clarification! 

4 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

@carebear3895, I concur with Sentinel947.

More than anything we've discussed about the BSA's possible implosion, this retirement situation is the biggest red flag that @Cburkhardt's prediction will come true:  the BSA is going to be liquidated, right now to the last basketry kit.

If the retirement plans of the front-line pros are in jeopardy, so is everything else.

Pension funds (defined benefit) are to some extent guaranteed by the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If an employee is vested, they will likely get some benefits, but the PBGC DOES NOT have to pay what was promised to the employees. It typically is the full amount, but given all the craziness with COVID-19 and possible bankruptcies related to that, I can't say with certainty. Defined contribution plan, any employer matches that are vested are the employees to keep. Matches can be reduced or cut at any time. 

The future of the BSA is uncertain, and I'd never gamble my livelihood and future by hitching my wagon to an organization like that. It's on a list with a handful of other legacy companies that are circling the drain, that COVID or no COVID, I won't work for. 

26 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Just got off the retirement plan webinar. I really could've done without one of the Assistant Chiefs who makes 300k a year telling us "I know you must be mad, but remember why you joined in the first place" 

You likely have some marketable skills. It's clear the BSA isn't looking out for you as an employee, and future decline is likely inevitable. You should make for the exits before everybody else gets the same idea. It's noble to "go down with the ship" but I like being able to pay my bills and retire someday. 

51 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

"Sacred cows" at 54:18 into the recording.  Immediately following are the comments about preserving "useful" traditions and how we must "pivot from valuing the past." 

16 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

(Emphasis added.)  So right.  When Mr. Ownby talks about preserving "useful" traditions and investing in what BSA customers "value," that is really scary.  What traditions does BSA National consider to be "useful"?  What does BSA National think that customers "value"?  Because I am really afraid they are going to say "badges" and "Eagle Scout."

If asked, I would say, "Do a Good Turn Daily" and "Be Prepared."  

I just listened to his comments more fully. Starting around 52:15, he's talking about changes mostly in light of finances. To me that gives a bit more context about what sacred cows he's talking about. I hope it's more structural, operational than programmatic. The lack of specifics are concerning, but gathering the broader context of his remarks made me feel a bit better. Just gotta wait and see. 

2 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

 Condescending, out of touch management style towards staff and customers alike

Some organizations embrace a culture of failure and cannot tolerate success.

This hits so close to home it hurts. Ownby describing things as "sacred cows" is kinda condescending. I don't like the phrase. One persons sacred cow is another person's core feature. Also, it's also kinda derogatory to Hindu's. There are better phrases to use, but that's neither here or there.

For example, in the 70's, the leadership of the BSA decided in their wisdom that being outdoors and learning outdoor skills was a sacred cow that could be sacrificed for their new vision. Obviously many Scouters felt that they were cutting a core feature, and were ultimately proven right. 

Who knows what is on the chopping block yet. Maybe it's sub programs like OA, Venturing, NYLT, Wood Badge. Maybe it's program features like requirements, It almost certainly involves national or council properties and camps. Saying that people's support of those things is: A sacred cow: "an idea, custom, or institution held, especially unreasonably, to be above criticism (with reference to the Hindus' respect for the cow as a sacred animal). " Is starting out the conversation on a bad note. It mentally causes me to dig my heels in. 

I haven't managed to find the timestamp where he said that, so maybe his tone improved the message significantly, but I think it relates to @desertrat77s point. Given the BSA's track record throughout the years, I don't have any confidence in this "transformation" being anything but failure. This time, unlike the 70's, there isn't a William Hillcourt waiting on the bench to fix things. 

For those concerned about it. (Or maybe just me.) Dan Ownby talks about ending programming at 18. It's at the 56:54-57:02 mark. 

https://nam.scouting.org/?fbclid=IwAR2JR-yD5DMXRgJLrJ_nKOffFqtplXH01rKAjPx4GnwNTHd2hFyIeys7Y0s

5 minutes ago, Rick_in_CA said:

 How long before 18, 19 and 20 year olds are going to need "adult supervision"?

Isn't that effectively what college is becoming? Some would argue it's been that way for a while. 

25 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

That's the beauty of the Council Service Fee, they are selling it by eliminating the Family FOS campaign.  Not FOS mind you, just the campaign.  Oh, and the fees for tent camping at council property, which were double the local state parks.

I've got no problem with the FOS campaign. Like any other charities I support a value transparency in what my donation goes to. In my council, I feel good about what FOS is used for.  With the bankruptcy, money collected for other purposes may go towards the settlement. 

It's a catch 22. I stop contributing, it hurts council programs today. I keep contributing, the money possibly goes to a settlement fund, and not the purposes I had intended. 

21 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

This will be hard to swallow with the $60 service fee my council has implemented.  In two years the annual dues will have increased from $36 to $72 to $126?!?!?!

Seriously? $66? For what purpose, to be paid over during the settlement?

I've been thinking about my FOS contributions. If the organization is going to go bankrupt and slimmed down, where will that money be going? The settlement fund? 

6 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

This business of parents being encouraged to hang around and interfere during Troop meetings and on weekend campouts is just not in my past or current experience.  I can tell you right now this does not go on in our district.  And don't get the idea that this would happen more frequently with girl Troops.  It is entirely the opposite.  The girls want to be independent from the parents more than the boys.  Again, my 1.5 year experience with a 32-girl Troop. 

I can hardly believe this is what you folks are personally experiencing, so you must be sharing information from others.  Interference like what you describe is not part of "family scouting" as envisioned or promoted by the BSA, and anyone who is promoting that it is doing a disservice to the youth members and should be stopped.  "Family Scouting" is nothing other than encouraging multiple youth in a family to participate in Scouting units so the whole family is involved in BSA programs.  It has nothing to do with Mom and Dad hanging around unless they are also trained Scoutmasters.

The Family Camping aspect of this is entirely different.  In the Chicago Area Council (now Pathway to Adventure Council) we have had a dedicated family camping area since the 50's called Camp Reneker.  My experience is that the families come along and do not want to spend time with the Scout during the week or weekend.  They hang with the other families and their own smaller children.  During summer camp, they generally show to the opening and closing campfires, but the families sit by themselves off to the side and not with the Scouts.  And, families can go there by themselves if they want.

Family scouting is here to stay and will indeed improve the BSA.  Don't cut it off simply because there are some weak-willed Scoutmasters out there that allow their unit program to get messed-around with like that.  This is what the next generation of Scouters want. 

I don't think anybody said it had to do with girl troops any more than boy troops. Now I feel like you're trying to paint me and others here as unenlightened reactionaries, which I do not appreciate. I do appreciate the information you are providing from the meetings, and I am trying my absolute best to not shoot the messenger. 

@Eagledad @Eagle94-A1, @InquisitiveScouter and I have all told you of similar situations that we have personally experienced. Your inability to believe it has no bearing on whether it is true or not. 

Many of these Scout leaders you describe as "weak willed" are members here or members here served with those Scoutmasters, and that was an exceeding poor choice of words. I'm glad you have parents that are cooperative with your troops programs. 

"This is what the next generation of Scouters want." Since you aren't offering any actual data to support your claim, I suppose we could start an exceedingly flawed survey on this forum and find out what this subsection of Scouters want. If it was invite only, I could skew it to say whatever I'd want it to say. Especially if I don't need to publish my data, only the results. I've created organizational surveys as part of my job. Statistics/ statistical analysis is part of my professional career. But you are correct, this forum tends to be older, it's not a representative sample of what future parents would want. 

There's also a delicious level of irony here, because I can guarantee you, I'm younger than you. I am the next generation of Scouters, unless the BSA destroys what makes this program worth having youth participate in. There are small handful of other youth and young adult scouters here, and I have a pretty good guess what their opinions are.