Eagle94-A1

I worked at Scout camps in the USA from 1996 to 2001. CITs never had to pay. I know at one of the camps, they attended staff week with the rest of the paid staff. They were full fledged staff members with staff t-shirts, hats, polos, and dominoes (local staff emblem). They never had to pay to play. They helped  the MBCs, and in a few cases were teaching classes. I remember a few were working in First Year Camping teaching basic T-2-1 skills with the retired Marine. I know we had some in the trading post, but they knew before they came to staff week they were going there. And for the last week, when it was slowest and were not needed as much, they did the HA program at the camp as a thank you. We took care of our CITs because we depended on them so much.

Sorry cannot remember the second camp I worked at, but want to say they did as well.

I am shocked council got involved. we have had similar situations, and they will not intervene.

@Brannigan,  Did council remove the person, or the CC remove them? I ask because when a similar situation occurred, I was told "Council does not get involved unless something criminal happens."  If council removed them, then something more happened, and charges may be forthcoming.

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

My observations over the years:   

Turnover of DE's is extremely high.  In general, those that take the role out of a passion for Scouting, helping youth, and program in the outdoors are rapidly disabused of those notions under the whip of money and membership, often being asked to depart from the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

All true. I would also add horrific leadership who will punish you if you do the right thing.

Another factor probably not as well known is stress on family life. The divorce rate is extremely high among pros. Worse case was the DE who supported his wife through law school. First thing she did once admitted to the bar was serve him divorce papers. One of my coworkers was on wife three.

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, many, many leave after a short time.  Those that remain (there are exceptions!!!) are often not the type of person we would want in that role...  And the long production line of poor leadership and deficiencies in executive development begins. 

The few exceptions are working twice as hard to meet their goals. And if the higher ups are on their case, even if meeting goals, they continue adding pressure to you until you want to quit. 

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The product is people who hang on in horrible, unethical work environments long enough to get vested in a pension program, and potentially get on the "SE Gravy Train" of an inflated executive salary, if they can work the system and get hired into that position in a council somewhere.  And their primary goal is preservation of that system, which has rewarded them for their perseverance. 

100% correct. Add in get promoted to a national position. Seen a  horrific SE get promoted to a national position.

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Again, I have met some wonderful counter-examples.  But, on the collected whole, I think my assessment, although negative, is accurate.

Sadly it seems that even if you get a good SE, he was  "punished" for something. One of the best, honest, hardworking SE's I've ever met  was "promoted" to an SE position that really was a demotion. He was a Director of Field Service in a very large metro council. He discovered some financial irregularities that eventually led to embezzlement charges. His "reward" was being promoted to one of the smallest councils in the BSA. One field director he had as DFS of the Metro council had more DEs under than, than the entire council he became SE of.

It gets frustrating for the good ones.

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And I love to hear about those successful counter-examples, so fire away! (They are what give me "a fool's hope") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0S_MebzyzQ&ab_channel=Ejdamm

 

 

Sadly @DuctTape is correct d some SEs are indeed despots.  BSA pros have been going on for some time. I remember an SE telling his subordinates how to do it on the district level. 

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

I think their main job is to hire the SE...after National tells them who it will be.  

I actually heard of a council board firing the SE. Sadly he got hired in a larger council as a DFS.

11 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Is it me or are they making this up as they go along?

I believe they are making it up as they go along. I had a bunch of questions regarding the new registration process, and the pros could not answer them except to say "Keep doing what you do now."

To quote C3-P0,

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

2) Communication with the BSA contingent participants and the top leadership was poor. They were disappointed that their input felt ignored and the perception was that decisions appeared to being made by officials housed in air-conditioned hotel rooms who seemed very removed from the actual site. 

What else is new.

When I worked for national, I had someone over me who had no experience with the program or summer camp experience. I created a SOP manual that included diagrams, schedules, etc for a trading post. They had no idea what happens at camp, and wanted us to work ridiculous hours that would not have benefitted campers, Scouters, or staff.  We ended up compromising by opening up the hours I knew would work, and staying open during during the hours they wanted. Long story short, sales data showing the most productive hours had to be used to show the times I suggested worked. Further they thought they knew better about how to organize the shop., but didn't communicate this. Long story short, they got mad when we rearranged the shop according to the diagram in the SOP manual they approved. They stopped by to visit what they thought would be a slow time. It was actually the busiest, and the design of the store was shown to be better than what they set up. 

8 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

...Covering for pedophiles is therefore also really bad. If you do it, expect people to be very angry when you get caught covering their crimes up, especially the victims. People don't really need any additional reasons to be mad at that point, pedophilia 105% covers it. Leftists definitely didn't make scouter pedophiles rape anyone, or prevent the BSA from filing police reports or proper banning all suspected pedophiles from the organization. 

Have you any evidence that BSA covered up crimes? In the reports I have read, once BSA became aware of the situation they removed the individual from Scouting. Depending upon jurisdiction, mandatory reporting laws came for youth volunteers came about in the late 1970s to late 1980s (first mandatory reporting laws only protected physicians from false reports, and they started in the late 1960s/early 1970s). In the files I have read,  it is noted that parents did not want to prosecute the pedophile because they did not want their child to relive the horrors in court. One file showed a pedophile going to a mental institution instead of jail because the parents would not press charges. Once he was released from the mental institution, he moved to a new location, and applied to work for the BSA. If it wasn't for the Ineligible Volunteer File that had him in it, he may have gotten hired since he did have a clean background.

Another situation I am aware of was never reported to anyone.. The individual was a 'well respected and upright member of the community," Individual knew no one would believe him, except his parents, and he did not want his father taking the law into his own hands. He does not blame BSA, but the abuser, who is now long dead.

13 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Again, these aren't in Scoutbook. 

I understand, but you did state:

20 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

 ...Even then, I bet it wasn’t lost.

and I responded. And yes, the records were lost, deleted, etc.

Let's face it, BSA's technology is horrible.  Most of the CIOs had none, zero, zip IT experience.  They were a former SEs who put their time in. I know 1 person in that position with an IT background, and he left in approximately 6 months. Do not know who has been in charge since him.

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Training isn’t tracked in Scoutbook. In my.scouting?... They have too many systems.

Agree too many system, and  they have too many issues. Whichever system system tracks training, records FOR ALL VOLUNTEER IN MY COUNCIL ( emphasis) went MIA twice in a 5 year period.

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I would guess you have multiple IDs.

Yes i do have multiple ID numbers from the 6 councils I have been in over the years. But I've been in my current council for some time, and the records have been corrected using my current ID.

But you reminded me that I am still waiting for a promise made in 1998 by BSA's CIO that SCOUTNET 2000 would easily transfer records as you move councils. All your ID numbers were suppose to be automatically connected.

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

 Even then, I bet it wasn’t lost.

Well if my and every volunteer in my council's records were not lost, why did the registrar ask everyone to submit training records to her twice in a 5 year period?

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

That isn’t a Scoutbook issue, but a council issue. They are the ones who record (and can change) the date. 

 Eagle is the latest example. Scoutbook has dropped rank advancement, even stuff I personally inputted, and printed reports for. Also for some reason my records got altered for my Scouts? Scoutbook says they were members of a pack that did not exist when they were Cubs.

On 8/2/2023 at 9:26 PM, mrjohns2 said:

Every time (literally every time) someone posts to the Scoutbook forum with data being dropped, it is figured out. It has NEVER been lost. Sometimes, the Scout had created a new account and then it appears it is all missing. It is sorted out pretty quickly.  

Then why did I have to submit training records twice in a 3 year period? Why have I had to resubmit records multiple times? Heck I have gone in and fixed things, only to have information missing or inaccurate? Heck it got to the point that one of my Eagles does not care that the record has the wrong date of him earning Eagle.

10 hours ago, Better4itall said:

Surprise demands on volunteers.... Does this council not realize that that the volunteers they are threatening are the foundation of their organization? Let's see how quickly we can crush a once thriving movement for the advancement of character and values by subverting it to job preservation. Please pardon if this sounds  like a rant, but it is. 

Sadly some councils do not give a fig for the volunteers. And when the volunteers stop working on the district level, they wonder why.

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

Good District Executive's rarely stay.

Between the long hours, lousy pay, horrible managers, and stress it an cause, both health wise and family wise,  it is not worth it. And most can find private sector jobs that can double their salaries. One former coworker actually tripled his DE salary when he left.

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

 I like how our council relies heavily on volunteer input when it comes to decision-making. Very seldom do they make a decision without volunteer approval/input.

 Be thankful. Some councils will have their professional staff ignore your input, yell, scream, curse you out, or remove you from your position (if you do not quit first) for having a view that does not align with the pros. We got some new professionals, and they are scratching their heads as to why no one will volunteer to be on the district level. There may be some hope, albeit a fools hope. New pro is a former volunteer, and when talking about some of the issues, was shocked and disgusted at them. To paraphrase Animal Mother in FULL METAL JACKET: He talks the talk, but can he walk the walk?

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

 As a volunteer, I'm on my 3rd DE in the short 5 years I've been doing this. 

That use to be the norm, despite a 3 year contract.  In my neck of the woods I am on my 4th DE within 12 months. So you  are doing great.

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

I've also heard that some volunteers are the reason why DE's leave. They try to create a relationship, but instead get blamed when things go South and the council backs the volunteer instead of the DE. 

I have never seen volunteers be the reason why DEs leave, and I have been around a while. In fact when I was a pro, all of my coworkers left for the same reason: the horrible management creating unrealistic goals. The volunteers were one of the few good things about the job.

As for council backing the volunteer over the professional, I have seen it once, and that was because the volunteer was a big donor. Donor's son was caught stealing at camp and sent home by the camp director. CD's boss made him reinstate him on camp staff. Fortunately he was moved into a position where he no longer had the opportunity to steal, plus everyone watched him like a hawk.

1 hour ago, Delphinus said:

Our Council just released their monthly newsletter and it states that the prices are all increasing significantly.

     - Adult volunteers will see their registration fee increase from $45 to $60. (a 33% increase)

     - Merit Badge Counselors go from $0 to $25 (if they are not registered as an adult leader in a unit)

All of these people are adult VOLUNTEERS, which means that they are volunteering their time, energy, skills, etc. free of charge to support Scouting. Are there any other organizations that ask for volunteers and then charge them fees to provide their donation of time and labor? 

 

This is a National fee increase, and was first mentioned at the May National Annual Meeting. Just be glad your council doesn't charge additional, council specific, fees.

1 hour ago, Delphinus said:

I'll start by saying that generally, I like Scoutbook and the functionality it offers for tracking Scout advancement. What are you seeing in your Troops? What I've seen is that our Troop only records requirements completed in the hardcopy Scout Handbooks. Then, when a Scout achieves the rank, the Troop Advancement Chair just checks the completion of that rank in Scoutbook. This bypasses a lot of the functionality inherent in Scoutbook that enables online tracking of the individual rank requirements. percentage complete towards the next ranks, etc.

Is there a preferred or even an official standard for how Troops should use Scoutbook for tracking advancement? 

  

There are a variety of reasons why units do not use SCOUTBOOK.

1. SCOUTBOOK does have a history of dropping data, and incorrect data, so units do not consider reliable. In fact whenever discrepancies have been found between a council's records and the handbook's records, the handbook overrides the online records because that contains the actual, physical, signatures. I have had Scouts up for Eagle being told they are only First Class because of dropped records. I have Scouts whose histories are incorrect with wrong information listed, and in some cases unchangeable.

Worst case example was adult training. I spent 18+ months getting my district's training records updated because no one was listed a s trained. within 24 months of me turning in the information to get fixed, all those records disappeared. Thankfully I had the original work on hand ,and only had to collect folks who had done training since the original project.

2. Some areas of the country do not have reliable internet. There are large areas in my council that do not have highspeed internet, and in a few cases internet at all. During the pandemic we had students in parking lots and on benches at school campuses using the schools wifi because they either the internet was too sow, or nonexistant.

3. A handbook is a lot easier to carry camping, and internet service may be spotty where you are at. 

4. SCOUTBOOK does not allow youth to sign off on advancement, only adults with authorization can do advancement. This defeats the purpose of Scouting.

5. The most important thing to remember is that (emphasis) THE SCOUT HANDBOOK IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD AS THE SIGNATURES AE IN IT. As I stated in #1 above, whenever there are discrepancies or missing information, the handbook is used to fix the electronic records, not the other way around. I cannot tell you how many times in my 31 years as a Scouter that I have seen electronic advancement records missing or incorrect over the years. This includes records that I had submitted either by hand pre-INTERNET ADVANCEMENT, or records I personally inputted, and were missing. 

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

What if your council hasn’t communicated a list one way or the other?

Great question.

I would ask. And if they still do not produce one, use the Order of the Arrow's Where to Go Camping Book as that is a publication of the council. That is what a lot of packs do in my area.

My council A) has never produced a list, even when members of the Council's Cub Scout Camping Committee ask for, and was pushing it to be made. A direct quote from a member of the Council's Camping Committee, which we the Cub Committee was under was " Cubs don't need to camp." Also several several of the council's properties failed to meet basic BALOO camping standards, yet they held overnight Cub camping events there anyway.

1 hour ago, sierracharliescouter said:

What changed, I'm pretty sure, is that there was significant push back on this from the Councils. I know I voiced opposition to this policy and I believe our SE also had problems with the one-night restriction. 

Simple fact is that in many areas you can't reserve a camp site for a single night on a weekend. So, at a basic level, you'd end up doubling the cost for the campout per night. It is also very stressful to do all the work to set up for a single night, then have to break it down less than 24 hours later. 

I think the SEs complained, especially since they may lose money with units not camping at council camps*. I know the councils I have been in charged a flat, weekend fee fro Friday through Sunday. Federal, state and local camps I have been to have charged a per night rate, comparable or cheaper than the council rates for the weekend. So why pay for a full weekend, when you can pay for one nite elsewhere?

*I have been told that some councils have only approved council camps for Cubs, basically creating a monopoly on campsites for them. If you are in one of those councils, I would love to hear about it.

28 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I'd like to think our discussions here had something to do with this.

Anyone have a connection to a decision-maker to be able to tell whether this is true or not??

@RichardB, any reason for going back to the previous policy?

Posted on a district website.

1

Since the CC is over all committee members, yes he can make that rule.

Depending upon how "linked" the troops are, I can see it as an issue. I have seen "linked" troops that are the case only on paper, and can see where confusion lie. Those troops do everything together, and essentially are 1 troop. So I can see the point of no ASMs of either troop serving on BORs because at some point they are interacting with the other troop in an ASM role.

Currently the only guidance  on BOR members is the following

"8.0.0.3 Composition of the Board of Review A board of review must consist of no fewer than three members and no more than six, all of whom must be at least 21 years of age. For further specifications, see “Particulars for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks,” 8.0.2.0, and “Particulars for the Eagle Scout Rank,” 8.0.3.0. Unit leaders and assistants shall not serve on a board of review for a Scout in their own unit. Parents, guardians, or relatives shall not serve on a board for their child. The candidate or the candidate’s parent(s) or guardian(s), or relative(s) shall have no part in selecting any board of review members." page 52

"8.0.2.0 Particulars for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks The preceding applies to boards of review for all Scouts BSA ranks (except Scout rank), but there are a few differences for the ranks other than Eagle: 1. The board is made up of three to six unit committee members—no more and no less. In units with fewer than three registered committee members available to serve, it is permissible to use knowledgeable parents (not those of the candidate) or other adults (registered or not) who are at least 21 years of age and who understand Scouting’s aims. Using unregistered adults for boards of review must be the exception, not the rule. Registered committee members familiar with the unit program, who have had a background check, and who are Youth Protection trained are preferred. Scheduling boards of review when and where unit committee members can attend usually alleviates the problem of not having enough committee members for a board." P55

and

8.0.3.0 Particulars for the Eagle  Scout Rank The particulars below pertain only to the Eagle Scout rank. 1.  Council advancement committees must determine— and make known—method(s) for conducting Eagle Scout boards of review: whether unit committees or the council or district advancement committees administer them, and also how board chairpersons are selected. 2.  If conducted at the unit level, at least one district or council representative, who is not affiliated with the unit, must serve as a member. If the unit requests it, more than one may do so. 3.  There shall be no fewer than three and no more than six members, all at least 21 years old. They need not be on an advancement committee or registered with the Boy Scouts of America, but they must have an understanding of the rank and the purpose and importance of the review. This holds true for Eagle boards of review held in any unit, whether troop, crew, or ship." page 55

19 hours ago, qwazse said:

The boots on the ground simply didn’t care, Seaton desired to take action so that they would care. He sought Baden Powell’s support, which Powell refused to give. BSA relented. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3346224).

THANK YOU FOR THE LINK! (yeah I'm shouting at ya. I could not find the article)

15 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

But while BSA didn't actually sue GSUSA then, the official well-regarded leader of the organization clearly didn't want any sisters in scouting.

Actually the sister Scouting organization was Camp Fire Girls of America.  Many of the same folks who were involved with BSA were also involved them.  Here is info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(organization)

 Sadly  @qwazse said it best

20 hours ago, qwazse said:

...“Adults ruin everything.”

The Archdiocese of New Orleans had all their parishes drop Scouting back in 2021, during the bankruptcy, as  things became known how much the BSA did not tell the COs.  

14 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

🙄 What happened to brothers and sisters in scouting?

Not that I want a lawsuit either, but this suing of the other official Scouting organization in your country is very unseemly IMO. I wish GSUSA hadn't done that.

To Play Devil's Advocate, the "confusion"  that GSUSA says occurred, would not have happened if BSA would have won their lawsuit in the 1920s. If memory serves, BSA wanted the GSUSA to call themselves the Girl Guides of the USA. James West stated that GSUSA was using the reputation of the BSA to build their organization.

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

I can't even envision a scenario where I ask a girl to take her Gold Award off her BSA uniform.

One immediately comes to mind, the other was a practice since discontinued.

The one immediately coming to mind is a public event especially one with GSUSA members will be present. Their national organization has issued specific guidelines to not allow GSUSA uniform items on BSA uniforms, and vice versa. And because it was happening GSUSA sued the BSA over the matter. I do not want them in trouble, nor another lawsuit.

Back in the day, Wood Badge and Brownsea 22, the NYLT of it's day, had very specific uniform guidelines. Onlye the council strip, either 1 or 22 depending upon the course, and patrol patch were allowed on the uniform. No awards, temporary insignia, position patches, ranks, etc allowed. But as I have stated, it has been discontinued.