Krampus

You can be against the membership changes and still have a positive outlook for Scouting.

LOL...I have t-shirts older than you. I know, I know, but some t-shirts are classic (The Who at Red Rocks, Stones at Wembly, etc.). Every generation is shaped by their environment. The "Me" generation of the 60s brought you the greed of the 80s. Ironic, isn't it. I have been saying that the Millennials are narcissistic and self-absorbed. Of course they didn't get that way coming out of the womb. They developed that by how society helped share them (common core, the Internet and dual-income parents creating more latch-key kids). So the parents are in part to blame for why the Millennials are the way they are. That said, I am not fully on board with the argument that -- because society has caused Millennials not to trust government and corporations -- that is the reason for the drop in volunteerism for that age group. I volunteer, not out of a sense of duty to my community or for the good of the whole, but because I want MY KID to have the best experience possible. I want them to see that when *I* am involved I care for them, I want to help them (directly or indirectly) and I want them to have a role model they can emulate. I fear many of the self-absorbed Millennials are merely mirroring what their self-absorbed parents taught them. My unit does this for all roles...and yet, unless you hold their hand, the under-30 crowd is more lost than ever. Not sure the answer, but the problem is clear. Few self-motivated thinkers.

Yet. Pendulums swing both ways. We are merely and the back stroke of this issue.

We will see if this generates any rise in membership. So far the decline has doubled, not risen.

Thanks for the reply. I've focused on theses two quotes. I'm interested in why you think these two issues exist.

Increasing rates of membership losses at both the youth and adult levels means two things: 1) Fewer Scouts and 2) Fewer adults. Since this trend has increased since 2013 (by nearly doubling, check the threads with these facts noted), why should we not be concerned? There are fewer adults, ergo a smaller volunteer pool. I'd love to see stats on the average age of volunteers by unit, district and council over the last ten years. That data would tell a great deal.

Depends. We hold our unofficial meetings at a local watering hole, sans-Scout gear. Just a few adults having a beer that happen to also work volunteer at our troop. Coincidence? If the complainer was at a place I could go directly to him and have this chat, I would. I'd invite him for a beer/coffee and ask if he'd like to be the Insect Study MBC because he's obviously got an arthropod somewhere.

Heck yes you are biting off WAY more than you can chew. Building a Pack will take a looong time. One year won't cut it. Taking over for an SM is a hard job. I would encourage you to make sure that SM shows you the ropes in Year 1, you take over in Year 2 and he's around during Year 2 to help advise (in the background). You cannot be a good CM and be a good SM (or ASM for a NSP). It is one or the other given the situation you describe. My two cents.

A Scout is Honest. Since the OP is a Scouter and he says so, that's good enough for me. The fact that this guy did not come to the OP directly is dishonest. There's no proof that there was any disagreement between the OP and the complainer as you stated above. If the complainer didn't go directly to the OP then he's guilty of not acting in a Scouting fashion. Done. I *do* wish you lived closer to me...I am getting thirsty and could use a good Belgian beer to help convince you.

Actually, the OP says that "someone complained to the Cubmaster". That's no longer an assumption. Did the complainant go to the person who performed the ceremony? No. Did the complainant have BSA experience as a professional Scouter or super volunteer -- and thus should know better than to act like he did? According to the OP, yes. Did the complainant treat the person who performed the ceremony in an un-Scouting manner by not showing him the common courtesy and respect he should have by addressing his concerns in private with the CM, CC and person who did the event? Absolutely! Maybe in your neck of the woods having a conversation ABOUT someone instead of WITH someone is acceptable, but where I live that's considered rude, cowardly and down-right disrespectful. Add trying to influence an outcome to that mix and you have passive-aggressive bullying, full stop! Maybe I missed it, but where in the OP does he say he's had personality clashes with the complainant? Because Scouters are supposed to handle things directly within the unit. I've had issues with people in my unit and I address them directly, as they do with me. If you and I were in the same unit I'd invite you for beers (or coffee), sit down and discuss our differences and how we can work together. I would NOT complain about you behind your back. If the unit supported you and I could not, I'd leave to find a place that fit more with my perspective. Why give this Scouter a pass on his treatment of the person who did the ceremony? Agree, let's not jump to conclusions, BUT when you don't show someone common courtesy within your own unit, yeah, you're (not you, but the guy who complained) going to get both barrels from me.

Wow...better hope none of these folks are doctors or lawyers or airline pilots or something where thinking outside of the box and initiative are required. I've had Millennials who hold positions where they must think without being told what to do and they are very successful at it. However, that line of thinking stops at the office door. I'm not convinced they really value what Scouts does. Maybe that's why they are not volunteering en mass. I'd hate to think all of them are too narcissistic to help their own kid by volunteering. This thread from two years ago hits on a similar issue. I believe there are several different types of volunteers, as highlighted in this old Scouting article from two years ago. I think the problem is that there are few who would bring "enough for everyone", and even fewer of those types with the Millennials.

Hi Barry, I probably wasn't clear. I meant to say that, like PORs, a SM needs to give constant and consistent feedback on the status of OA candidates just as he does on his leaders. You cannot go six months with a poor PL, not give the lad any feedback, and then deny him his POR served toward his rank. That's just not right. The SM has failed in his job to help that Scout fix any problems he's been having demonstrating his leadership and fulfilling his obligations. Similarly, if an OA candidate is not living up to the Oath and Law then the SM owes him the feedback and allows him time to adjust his behavior to meet those expectations.

I agree, but if you hit them just before elections with the fact you don't think they should be approved it better be something that just happened to cause them to not be a candidate. It would be unfair to let the last few months count against them with the SM not saying anything. Just like with PORs, you cannot deny them UNLESS you have been managing their expectations over a period of time by counselling them on how they are not living up to the Oath and Law.

I've struggled with this same issue as I am sure we all have. We know when our elections are each year so managing Scouts' expectations starts right after the last election. I met with the OA Rep and the PLC to discuss the whole issue of "worthiness". While my personal feeling is the OA is nothing more than a popularity contest, the PLC came up with the idea to note each month who the best campers and "volunteers" were when it came to overall service hours. Combined with monthly SMCs with the potential OA candidates (thanks to TroopMaster running these reports is easy), we were able manage the expectations of those potential candidates early. This method allowed the SM to essentially put on notice those Scouts who might be "on the bubble".

Exactly @@Stosh. Both Rick and Ducttape seem to keep missing the lack of Scouting this person showed. When you don't talk to someone directly you're going behind their back. Don't know why that's so hard for them to see.

@@Jackdaws nailed it.

I notice you keep ignoring the fact that this person -- who was a professional scouter or ex-professional, and is someone who appears to know a great deal about Scouting -- is acting contrary to the Scout Oath and Law by going behind the presenters back and not talking to him directly. Why is that? Why do you focus on what I assume and NOT on what are the facts I *did* note according to the OP? Why don't you find it "amazing" that this person acted in an unprofessional manner? Why don't you find people talking behind other people's back disrespectful? Why is it you don't think the person with the complaint should face the person he has an issue with, like a man and like a good Scout, and discuss his objections? Maybe you should focus more on what I *did* say than what you think I said.

So we have a few things here. The unit pays for those who haul the trailer to have supplemental insurance for pulling the trailer. It is comprehensive and based on potential damages that may result from pulling the trailer. I don't know the exact details, but as I understand it there's some type of calculator the agent can use to help determine what coverage is needed. For the gear in the trailer, I am told this is a rider much like you would have for personal items in a car or other storage space.

Yes. It is supplemental to the auto insurance.

I'd like to see those stats too. However, I think to a degree we are already seeing the unofficial stats. BSA notes that adult membership is dropping, and at a higher rate than youth membership is dropping. It would be interesting to see the details behind that. Is it due to "old timers" not re-upping? Or is is due to not enough younger parents. stepping up? Locally we are seeing the latter. Older parents are having to maintain roles longer because find replacements is harder; and the replacements they do find are not the Millennials, but that next generation up (40-50 year olds). Locally we have had three packs and one troop fold in the last three years. All three packs folded because none of the younger parents would step up and take ANY role. The parents leaving (all in their 40s) tried to get coverage but in the end the younger parents simply thought it was easier to find another pack than step up and help. Unless I misread @@Stosh's intentions of his post, it was that we shouldn't be catering to any generation, but rather forcing them to adjust to society and how it operates. The horse may be out of the barn with the current crop of young parents. They are already so spoiled that they might just become the next "Lost Generation". But there's a difference. Even the generation just above mine agrees that we are blatantly pandering to the Millennials rather than forcing them to comply with society. We keep making everything so easy. Hold them to the standards of societal norms rather than changing the rules to fit how they want to live their lives. Yes, other generations complained about youth. But it used to be that once you had kids a light bulb went off somewhere and you knew what you had to do. That's not the case with the advanced narcissism of the Millennials...and that's the difference. I think the Depression and a World War might have had something to do with it. Perhaps. Yet locally I see Tom Johnson spending more time working on his back swing or making sure he enjoys two Caribbean cruises (without his kids) each year, rather than helping his son with his homework or playing catch.

Sadly, this is out experience locally with this age group. Mom and dad are self-absorbed. They spend more time on themselves than their kids. When they do go to their kids' events they are on their phones or treating them like some sorority/fraternity mixer where they socialize rather than cheer on their team. Of course, they are the first to berate the referee or coach. @@Stosh has a point, why should we cater to this generation? The folks I see joining from this generation as leaders are useless. They sit around and want to be waited on at camp. They are not the jumping in sort. Gross generalization, sure. But per capita I find better volunteers in the older generations than I do with this one.

He found a Dutch oven with cobbler in his camp site for no apparent reason that night.

The kid was spot on in this case. Dad ONLY works during the week. The rest of the time after work and on weekends is all about dad. Sits in the car during his kid's soccer games. Goes to Starbucks and surfs wifi during daughter's dance class. Golf's rather than spending time with other son. The list goes on. Sorry, but the reason you have kids is to spend time nurturing them. Glad to see the kid is NOT is father's son.

Who holds the insurance on the trailer?

Correct it is about parents. But @@desertrat77 point is well taken. Our parents did not adjust their styles to communicate with us. As we grew older WE joined society. Twenty plus years of PC-Gone-Wild has left us with a generation that wants to be catered to, and now their children want the same. Thankfully I have hope for this next generation. I overheard a Scout this weekend reply to the question as to why his dad didn't come camping: "My dad's lazy. He works all week and then watches sports all weekend. He wouldn't last a minute out here." Go figure.