Col. Flagg

Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned about some things.  It just doesn't sound like the right setting for a Boy Scout meeting to me.  But that's just me.  It's a decision for the leaders of that troop to make.

It seems booze in bottles is the last thing one needs to be worried about if someone is being "old-fashioned" given all the other changes lately. 

If anything it is a chance to have an open conversation about the dangers of alcohol.

I think they are separate issues.  Accepting a youth as a boy who identifies as a boy, who "lives as a boy", whose parents accept him as a boy and want him to be in a program for boys, whose school accepts him as a boy, and (I am speculating here, but I think I'm right) whose medical/psychological professionals accept him as a boy, is a decision that stands on its own.  It is about transgender youth, and that's it.  That decision does not make it inevitable that the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will accept girls.  It only is inevitable if one does not believe that transgender is a "real thing."  I believe it is a real thing.  So "coed" is not inevitable.

Boy Scouts didn't allow TG because of any of that. They did it because of pressure. They likely did it because they mistakenly thing it will stop the membership loss. @@EmberMike is saying from what I read that he thinks coed is inevitable for the same reasons.

I think I would have an issue with the bar being right there in the meeting room.

Why? 

The only real down side that I can think of...and it's not much of one.... is that the pack wouldn't have a chance under the sun of placing in the district or council level races.

Why worry?

Do the kids really care? Are these races even worth entering when you know Pack 0000 has all the parents doing their kids' cars?

We did races, awards, then a HUGE Blue Bell ice cream party. There wasn't a kid who gave a darn what place they came in when they had the chance to build an ice cream sundae four times the size of their car!

EDIT: Almost forgot. First, if you got a trophy for racing you could not be part of the "superlative awards" like best design, etc. Second, the non-trophy finishers got to put a pie in the CM's face.

Well there is an upside to having such a location. 

But the things that have happened in the last few years have been done in accordance with the unofficial mission of BSA National, that being to reach more youth. It's much harder to go back the other way on any of these policy changes since that would effectively be counter to that mission and make the BSA more restrictive than it is today. They're never going to do that.

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave.

The result? An increase in the loss of membership. No ground swell of new members from those communities that were previously prohibited from joining. Certainly not enough of one to off set the 6-7% year on year membership loss since 2013.

Do you really want to hold up THAT as a model for growth? 

I think it is a done deal in this case. I don't think National would view a reversal as simply just going back to how things were before. From where we stand today, a reversal in policy is a limiting of program accessibility and a reduction of availability to the largest number of youth possible, something that I cannot ever see National doing.

I don't think any reasonable person expects BSA to put the genie back in the bottle. I also don't think any reasonable person thinks BSA is going to grow in membership with the changes they've made. Let me be clear: BSA will make small gains in small areas, but they will not replace the 6-7% losses they've experienced since 2013. They won't even stem the 3-4% year on year losses they've experienced for the last 25+ years.

What I have read here -- from those who don't support the policy changes -- is that they believe (I among them) that BSA's best long-term interests are served by finding equilibrium among their CURRENT membership; meaning boys. If they go coed I predict you will see double-digit membership losses among those who want an all-boy program. I don't believe the "influx" of girls will be enough to offset those losses over a long period.

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

Ok. But we're not talking about butter or salmon. Were talking about gender identity, and the rules about that are pretty clear in the state in which this case took place. School laws in NJ are similar. The fraud suggestion just doesn't hold up. 

Sure it does.

If BSA required you to put your gender from your birth certificate on the membership application, and you didn't, you've committed fraud.

It would be the same not checking the box if you've ever been arrested and you had been. 

It's not situational. It's black and white. You have a birth certificate. It says your sex. You put that on the BSA form. Done.

I had a Cub who attended 1, yes, 1 meeting(this includes Den and Pack) the entire Bear year. I took the stance that I wasn't here to second guess the parents. If they are just "rubber stamping" things then it's their son who's being cheated. I sort of put my foot down in the Webelos I year because there is a requirement about being active in your Den. I sent his mother an email with the requirement, she wasn't happy but she complied. He hasn't missed many if any meetings since.

Don't worry, these kids (and parents) are found out when they hit Boy Scouts.

The first thing we tell our new parents at our new parent orientation is, "You only have one more signature to give on your Scout's paperwork." We underscore the Instructors will help them on their trail to First Class. After that, they are on their own trail to Eagle. 

Mom and dad can sit back and help the troop, teach a MB class, be an ASM or TC member, but they won't sign off on ANY requirements ever again (unless they're an MBC).

Taking over at Webelos and working that through the DL is a GREAT idea!!!

Yes, Mashmaster we signed up for about 8 different dates and still were shut out.  Very frustrating.

See my post. It should work.

... he let's us know that we should be concerned about looking excessively gay, as if that's a bad thing.

 

You might think this is about deconstructing our notion of what visually distinguishes scouts from members of other noble groups, but no, it's about squelching the fun that many are having for the sake of the few who are embarrassed by said jamboree.

I would venture to say that given the lack of neckers in my district that the dweeb or nerd factor for neckers is high. Maybe it's regional. Though I would ask, how much of this letting the boys decide versus adults tacitly helping them decide?

On the gayness factor, all I have to say is...

We got tired of the PWD drama. So we did this:

• Everyone got their cars the same day.
• We got a few "shop dads" to donate their gear and we set up a workshop.
• All boys got a few hours to design their cars, then build, then paint. 
• The "shop dads" would supervise and make sure hands weren't being cut off, etc.
• Cars when done -- and the boys said when they were done -- they were inspected to make sure they worked and met specs. They were "impounded" for the race the next day.
• Everyone shows up and watched their cars race. Winners won and losers lost, but the playing field was even.

Good info, 

 

My house is literally right on the border of the 2 councils (back yard property line.

 

I did not see anywhere in writing that a charter has to have a troop in the council matching the address.

 

I have also been a registered leader in ABC for 10 years, love ABC. But charter I have connections with are XYZ

 

Suggestions?

Talk to your council. They will know the right answer.

Well, the issue here is that at face value, the unit violated state antidiscrimination law by accepting the membership, then later kicking the kid out.  So the council had a legal and public perception loser on their hands.  Settle the suit and have a lesson learned. 

Was fraud committed by the family? Because the BSA rules in force at the time was to use the sex listed on the birth certificate.

Can you have discrimination where fraud was the basis for the membership in the first place?

But to poke at Mike and 'BPack a little more ... the thread's title is basically a call on the rest of us to abandon a practice because "my boys don't like it / they think its dumb / they feel itchy with it on" and any other number of whiny excuses. In other words "Because I can't have fun with it, you shouldn't either."

I don't see the thread like that at all. 

I see one group of people saying that the existence of the necker should not define 1) if one looks a scout, 2) if one is a scout, 3) if one is a good scout, 4) if one is a proper scout, etc.

I see another group (adults) saying that the necker is the thing that identifies one as a scout and that units shouldn't give it up...even if the boys (who, after all, should be the ones making the decision in a boy led, patrol method unit) decide to toss them and wear ball camps instead.

Call it what you want, by some peoples' definition a dress tie is a necker.  Yet when one looks at someone wearing one, it in no way invokes the idea of scouting.  Take a triangular scarf toss it over the shoulders like a shawl (aka necker) and fasten with a rubber band.  It could leave the impression of a scout.

Odd...because the rest of the world seems to wear it like a bandana. Just check out the various pics of scouts around the world wearing it. Few, if any, wear it like we (USA) do. So are they wearing bandanas? Neckers? Ascots? 

My real question is, 

 

My new charter is in ABC Council, but my scouts and meeting area are in XYZ Council.

 

Thank you all for posts so far.

In my council it was districts. Moved from ABC district to XYZ district. Most of the Scouts still lived and went to school in ABC district, though they rechartered in XYZ district. Council helped get things settled.

Then ABC district said the unit could not recruit in ABC district any more. Asked to "show me in writing" ABC district could not show the unit where that was prohibited...so they kept recruiting.

My understanding is that council switches would be similar. I am told, but have never seen, something that says you cannot recruit across councils.

You said...
 

Other han scouting, I can't think of anyone using a necker as a piece of clothing except for Scouts and Scouters.  Anyone know of anyone other than scouts that does?

So I pointed out "anyone" who uses "a necker as a piece of clothing" other than Scouts. I guess you were surprised there were so many?
 

Ask the question, how many neckerchiefs are tied and now many are fastened with some sort of slide or piece of jewelry.  Cowboys wore what would be referred to as a bandana and would not necessarily be easily distinguished from others without chaps, riding boots, spurs and a wide brimmed hat.  Others who rode for reasons other than herding cows tended to wear dusters and did not need any other protective clothing other than a wide brimmed hat.

Depends on your definition. One could argue they would need to see a uniform, hat and other stuff to immediately consider someone a Scout. A simple necker just won't have most people thinking, "My God! There's a Scout!!"
 

A woman wearing a fashion piece of cloth around her neck would most likely have it described as a scarf, not a neckerchief and it usually was pinned or loosely tied with it hung to the front rather than to the back.  These "neckers" were purely ornamental and totally without practical use, just like the men's dress tie, which if one had a very vivid imagination could define it as a "necker" as well.

Google it. There's a few good ideas here of who else wore neckers. HINT: It wasn't just Scouts.
 
Any yes, it does acknowledge as Scouts being the most recent group. But your point (above) was that they weren't the only group. Any Navy non-comm would tell you that.
 


So...not just for Scouts.

 

I know there have been some changes to the inductions process, i.e. SMs can get a waiver for the camping requirement, but as far as I know district and council level volunteers must have it still. My district only had one person who met the requirement, and he's going in a few weeks.

Really? What's the point in that? This is the guy that is supposed to be the primary example of the program.

If there's any more evidence needed that OA has become a mere shadow of itself one need look no further. How sad.

Some summer camps no longer use the blue cards, which tosses a wrench in the whole process for the boys.

 

And as an added note: Most of the MB reports that do get turned into the troop are incorrect.  Well, in our case ALL of the MB reports we have ever received have been incorrect in one fashion or another.  Totally unreliable.

Amen.

However, some camps are FAR better than others about that. One way to avoid this problem is to ask the counselors for a list of what was covered. This helps identify who was organized and who wasn't. Usually the latter are the ones we have issues with.

Which is why they won't be redesigned.  They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops.  The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform.  BSA will update YPT and that will be it.

 

At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption.  The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.

Again, wait until the first law suit comes out for the boys' only troop. The CO says, "Forget it, not worth the hassle." and the unit is forced to go coed.

SSScout's story reminds me of  2 new DEs in my council growing up. We had 3 brand new, straight out of college DEs who were told by the SE that they needed to go through the OA Ordeal.

Well, maybe if the OA insisted on the camping requirement being met for district and council staff they wouldn't have that problem. I mean, it *is* supposed to encourage continued participation in Scouting and camping. Waive the camping and you simply have guys who work for your company. They might not even exhibit the Oath and Law.

In practice, units can do the same thing now they will be able to do when the BSA goes co-ed across the board.  The Charter Org says "all male", the unit policy can prohibit female siblings from attending events, the CO can stipulate all-male adult leadership.  As I said, these units can take boys all the way through the program without ever interacting with a co-ed unit.   

Just wait until that thought is first put to the test and someone sues. You can time how fast that CO capitulates or drops the BSA unit with an egg timer. We had that protection previously and look how fast BSA caved and placed the burden on the CO.

Old argument, same result.

With the most recent changes with the BSA policy (LGBT), Our Troop is loosing it's charter as it's a religious decision within, all respect is kept on both parties.

 

Please don't post negative remarks as we have moved past this, Goos news is we found a new charter.

 

My question is. I found a new charter that is not located in the council boundaries.

 

Is there a rule not allowing this. I am a member of a different organization that can host a Boy Scout Troop.

 

Our meeting are will be within the Council boundaries.

 

I tried looking this information up but was unable to.

 

Thank you.

This happened to several unit in my area, though they were outside district boundaries and not council boundaries. My understanding is that it is all solved in a similar manner; meaning your council and the accepting council are involved.

If acting as an MBC for someone outside my troop I fill out the WHOLE card. I fill out the center portion of the top card below for ALL requirements and sign it. Then I completely fill out the appropriate fields in the back. If the badge is complete I keep the MBC copy for my records.

It literally takes less than a minute to do this AND it has saved time down the road if there were ever a controversy. In 15 years I have only had one...and it was in my own troop for a lost card.

Other han scouting, I can't think of anyone using a necker as a piece of clothing except for Scouts and Scouters.  Anyone know of anyone other than scouts that does?

Flight attendants, chefs, people on holiday, anyone involved in fashion, cowboys, gold miners, actors, train engineers, Clint Eastwood to hide his [edited] big boo boo [/edited], etc. And that was just googling "guys who wear neckerchiefs".

[sad in this day and age we need to advise Scouts -- who we trust with knives, fire and other dangerous stuff -- not to do something painfully obvious]

 These tend to work:

 

- Persistently refuse to take Woodbadge Check

- Continually steer discussions back to "how does this impact the units?" Check

- As Eagle 94 said, point out discrepancies Check

- Be a bona fide outdoorsman/woman Check

- Decline to donate to FOS due to exceptionally poor council support/respect for units (and tell them exactly that) Check

- Do not support MB fairs Check

- Treat district/council staff with respect, but do so on a peer/peer level, fellow scouter to fellow scouter Check

Darn it! I must be doing something wrong!