Col. Flagg

Just throwing this out there, but I have heard the stat of 1-2% of all Venturing Scouts actually work on or achieve any advancement awards.

It would be interesting to see if this would change in a coed (Boy) Scouting program. And what would Venturing become if Scouting takes on girls? It would seem superfluous.

Not sure why this is such a huge issue, when it seems to work in almost every other country that has a Scouting program. I know that if given the option, my 12 year old daughter would drop GSUSA in a heartbeat.

I believe the point is having something for boys only. You know, that old chestnut.

Venturing is for girls, so the girls have that as an option. Not sure why they need to crow bar their way in to Boy Scouts.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily make what you believe correct.

Thanks for the condescending tone. I guess the retort you're looking for is, "Well, it doesn't make your assertion true either." Meh.

I guess "try" is the key word there. To try is not necessarily to succeed. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a parent suing to get his/her son into a particular unit that does not want the youth, if there is another unit available in which the youth will be welcomed. In the case of the 8-year-old from New Jersey, the parents sued because the BSA would not let their son into any Cub Scout pack. I haven't seen any more articles about that situation, but one would hope that the policy change resolved that lawsuit.

You assume there's another unit available. You further assume that the goal of the suit is to get their kids in Scouts as opposed to simply gratuitous litigation. But that never happens. BSA never backs down from threats to change policy.

I am not familiar with that "rather pathetic track record". Can you identify what cases you are talking about?

Ah, well, let's just stick with the latest one (law suit). I don't have time to quote the others. It's just a matter of time before this group or this girl file a law suit. They've already wasted Council time by submitting applications which the Council sent on to national.

According to the BSA technology "road map" they plan on making ScoutBook the platform for councils to manage MBC lists. Now, whether that is a suggestion or a mandate is anyone's guess.

It is an interesting read, if not amusing at times.

We had eight elected out of 21 eligible. The problem is that once they complete Ordeal there's just not a lot going on in the Lodge, so it becomes yet another thing to be involved in. Since many of the Scouts are over subscribed at it is, OA does not get much traction other than getting elected, completing Ordeal and wearing the sash. That's pretty prevalent where I live. I wish it were not.

As I and a few others have observed in this thread, based on the language of the BSA statement, it seems pretty clear that no unit will be required to accept a transgender boy as a Cub Scout or Boy Scout.  So no "defense" will be necessary.

I will believe it when I see it. It just takes one person with a reason and a lawyer to try to force change. And the BSA has a rather pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units when lawyers get involved. Time will tell.

I have read here before that some have turned down special needs Scouts because they may not be equipped to deal with their needs, perhaps causing a risk to the Scout and increased liability to the unit and adult leaders. Would not a girl boy joining Scouts pose a similar issue? Could not the same defense be used?

Whether it says so in any official print doesn't alter the reality of any SM's actions in the field.

Quite true. We ran in to a troop doing ATVs this past weekend. What folks do and what they're allowed to do are two different animals. I was also curious to see if there was some hidden, hard to find BSA rule that said SMs could not allow OA elections. I agree that saying the Scouts may not qualify by not having exhibited the Oath or Law gives the SM that option, but you'd have to have a pretty significant failure of leadership (by the SM) to get to that point. 

Thanks for the pointers. Alas I doubt I will be going! Its a massive commitment to be a jamboree unit leader. The trip itself is about 3 weeks once you do home hospitality. Throw in the selection process and the training camps and it burns an awful lot of time. Only so much my annual leave I can throw at scouting. I'm sure whoever goes though will have a fantastic time.

I hear the Dallas council (Circle Ten) is willing to host folks. It's a good 1200 miles from West Va, but there's plenty to see there and between the two points.

But why does participation in scouting create an obligation to the specific unit or to scouting at all?  Isn't the actual obligation, if we can call it that, to put the principles into practice in your own life?   To give back to your community?  If being a scout creates an obligation to the BSA shouldn't the Eagle project be required to benefit the BSA rather than the community at large?

 

Let's use an analogy.  If a young man signs up for military service, serves with distinction for 4 or 6 or 10 years, then voluntarily separates from the service, is he less of a veteran than a second young man that makes a career of military service?

Simple.

Society has too many ways to breed the kids these days in to self-absorbed, everyone-gets-a-trophy, what's-in-it-for-me narcissists that, unless someone holds them accountable, rarely do they voluntarily do anything selfless or philanthropic. As part of our unit's philosophy -- which people know going in -- is to have the boys give back through their leadership, participation, citizenship and community service. They know that once they make Eagle they are expected to "give back" in some way. Maybe they are a JASM. Maybe they are an Instructor for the younger Scouts. Maybe they lead a few special events (e.g., Eprep mobilization, first aid fair, wilderness survival camp out, shooting sports fun shoot, etc.). There's that expectation that they give back at least SOMETHING to the unit that gave so much to them.

Guess what? It works. Our retention rate is pretty high. These guys are not shamed or guilted in to sticking around. They do so because that is who they are. That is who they grew in to. They understand obligation and stewardship; leaving something better than you found it.

I'll give you an analogy, It's not enough that you camp in one camp site, mess it up but promise to clean up another one sometime in the future. You clean the camp site you just used and left in disarray so that the next camper can experience what you did. That's the philosophy in a nutshell.

If they don't like it, there's another 15 troops within 5 sq. miles they can join that will mill out Eagles and send them to their next resume-padding adventure.

If a boy gets Eagle at 15 and then quits the troop for a Venturing Crew so he can continue his personal growth does that count for or against him?  Does it matter if the crew is chartered by the same CO or not?  Does it matter if the Crew is focused on Drama rather than the outdoors?  He clearly left and isn't giving back to the troop, so that would suggest you'd view that scout negatively.  Or since he stayed in Scouting is it a positive?  And to whom is stewardship owed?  Does the scout owe stewardship to your unit, or your CO or scouting or to the ideals of scouting?  

 

What if your scout gets his Eagle, leaves the Troop, but ends up mentoring another youth in his drama club, or scholatic bowl team or marching band or youth group or just his group of non-scout friends hanging out on Friday night, in the ideals of scouting?  Would it be better for the Scout to stay in a troop where he doesn't have passion for the program, whether it's a perfect program or lousy, or is it better for him to take stewardship of the ideals and use them to better another young person somewhere else?  Would he still be a scout of poor character in that situation?

 

I think boys this age, whether they know it or not, are learning to build meaning into their life.  And I'd argue a meaningful life comes from having a passion for something objectively good.  They may not know what that passion is yet, but they are perfectly capable of figuring out what it's not.  We're just giving them the tools to be successful in that search.

We don't have to worry about this. In 25 years we've only had two Scouts make Eagle and run. They lied in their ESMC that they intended on sticking around and being active. Both literally left within days of their EBOR. Didn't stick around to have an ECOH. That was long ago.

Thankfully, our guys have learned to give back and to not be selfish.

I'd argue that knowing your obligations and living up to them -- at personal cost to yourself if that be the case -- is what forges the type of citizens *I* want to have around. I'm not sure I want some self-interested person who follows his own passions, never paying back those who helped him when *HE* needed.

So when exactly in the process of recruiting boys do you tell them and their parents they owe a debt to the unit?  Do you have them sign a letter of indentured servitude?

You might want to check your terms. Stewardship is a very different concept than servitude. We believe stewardship is part of character development. Sound familiar? One of the aims of Scouting. Certainly, getting Eagle and leaving does not speak much to character in our book.

Since you asked, we tell Scouts and their families when they join us that our unit prides itself on building the boys' character. To us that means that you give back what you take out. You don't cut and run once you get Eagle (if that's 14-16), you give back. You mentor. You coach. You give "cheerful service".

BTW, no one has ever left that meeting saying, "Nope, not the troop for me." In fact, when we interview Scouts/families that leave our unit, NO ONE has ever said, "Gee, you know that thing where you strongly encourage them to give back? That's just too much for us."

Wow. I always thought that our merit badge counselor issues were just due to our own Troop limitations and weaknesses. It is amazing to hear how many others have similar experiences. Frankly, I am having a hard time understanding how something so central to Scouting could be such a mess.

 

Well, I guess not THAT much of hard time .....

 

But still

Have you logged in to my.scouting during recharter to check your members' training history? 

If so, this should be no surprise.   

 

Units have always had the right to select their membership according to their beliefs. Perhaps the real issue is the relationship between units and charter orgs is not well understood. There is nothing cowardly about it.

 

To be honest, the decision is more fair in that it resolves an ugly long standing contradiction. BSA has always had charter partners who's values have supported this issue or other similar issue. To ask charter partners to provide space, money and support to the scouts without BSA accepting their members as scouts is wrong.  Completely wrong.  To be a national organization, you need to accept people with differences.  BSA is a national organization.  Units are local and protected by freedom of religion (if a religious charter org)

I see your point, but the vast majority of people are not going to see this. People don't think of the units or COs as somehow different from BSA, they see them as the local representative of the BSA. Heck, many COs in my area don't see the units as part of their ministry; more like they are tenants which the CO tolerate. I'll bet most don't know that they bear the brunt of the liability if something goes wrong.

I disagree with the statement that in order to be a national organization one needs to accept everyone. The charter from Congress and case law gives (gave) BSA the right to have the membership policies they had.

In my district I have already seen units and COs dissolve or force units out to avoid any controversy. I truly believe that few involved with Scouting really understand the relationship between units, COs, districts, councils and national.

BSA is not asking your unit to change or for you to change your attitudes.  

This is the part of your position I still don't understand, Fred, so forgive me.

Since BSA changed the membership policy they are telling the general public that BSA allows (x) type of person. So this (x) family comes to my unit and signs up. My unit's CO may not recognize the issue (x) person has and it may not be part of their foundational beliefs. (x) family won't understand that the CO has the "right" to turn them down. Heck, my CO might not see they have the "right" to turn them away. We had several COs in the district expel several units because of these membership changes.

So although you may not think BSA is asking COs and units to change, they are in fact guilty of -- at very least -- muddying the waters so much that they lay the expectation that units will accept (x) folks because BSA says they don't bar them anymore. No CO or unit in their right mind is going to subject themselves to the liability of turning (x) family away. Many leaders may not want the liability of what *might* happen if (x) person is now part of their troop.

BSA may not be asking folks to change their attitudes, but they are not doing anything to allow the COs and units to exercise their "attitudes" without fear of retribution or litigation. That's pretty cowardly in my book on BSA's part.

This sounds like our MB list until a few years ago.

Keeping a list of MBC's is a function of the District Advancement Committee.

 

Our council also no longer allows "Troop only" MBC's.

How do they enforce this? I'm curious because this is a rampant issue. Most MBC's who want to be troop-only hide behind the "I don't have time right now" excuse.

I just sent a note to the national JTE lead asking the question. The answer does not exist where it is easily found. I will post any reply I get. 

EDIT: That was fast!!! Here's the reply I received from the national JTE person...

JTE is from January 1 to December 31 of each calendar year. Below is a blurb from a unit worksheet regarding recharter:
 

This might be an unpopular opinion, but here goes...

 

I think the BSA should drop things from the program that overlap with school activities. Disconnect the program from things that kids already learn in school and focus more on the outdoor adventure component. If Scouting is going to endure as an elective activity that's supposed to be fun compared to school, the program needs to change to truly be that kind of an activity. It really can't be a surprise that so many kids lose interest when the program includes so much academic stuff and repeats of things they are taught in history and social studies classes at school. 

And yet which direction does Scouting go? The double down on STEM activities at places like Seabase and Bechtel and Philmont, focusing MORE on the activities that compete with school. I applaud them linking STEM to the outdoors, but I think that's getting lost in the message to the kids.

For example, my son met some folks from USGS and the US Forest Service this summer at Philmont. This kids LOVES biology and geology, in addition to being in Scouting and outdoors. When he learned he could spend a summer doing an invasive species census in the meadows and highlands at Philmont, he JUMPED at the chance!!

BSA needs to do more of that: Build STEM that can be done outdoors and show the linkages to how this helps them learn and, eventually, go on a college resume (our build a skill for your future).

It's already been conferred, and nobody is rioting over it.

I know. They're too busy doing it elsewhere.

I wish not only would troop only mb counselors not be allowed, but that counselors are forbidden from signing off for scouts in their own troop. The boys lose out on so many opportunities by having everything done "in house". I am almost certain this will never change.

Our council always tells us there's no such thing as "troop-only" MBCs. Now, policing that they don't do. So folks on the MBC list *should* be available to all. In actuality they simply say "I'm too busy" when they mean "I do my troop only."

Since all presidents have been honored with this status, I highly doubt it will NOT be conferred. I expect the Berkeley kids to riot after it happens.

My council will print out a list if requested for my district. Anyone registered as an MBC from my district will show up on that list.

The PROBLEM lies in how folks register. For example, I'm an SM so I register each year as an SM. I am also an MBC, so I register as an MBC. HOWEVER, it appears, at least in my council, those are two different systems. Making things worse, they generated yet another BSA ID for me (despite providing my BSA ID on the MBC form). So in my.scouting I have to take YPT twice.

You'd think they could just go in to the membership system, check the right boxes and delete the extra account. Nope.

Our Unit Solution? We get the list from Council, have a few volunteers contact the MBCs to see if they are still active. Input that data in to a Google spreadsheet and update that once a year via email. This allows *us* to keep a list by name, MB and email. Anyone who does not want their name on that list we take off.

In just over two years time USA will host the World Jamboree, jointly with your neighbours in Canada and Mexico. Part of the Jamboree experience is home hospitality, where scouts from contingents from all round the world are hosted for a few days by the families of scouts from the host nation either before or after the main camp itself.

 

Historically the contingents from Western Europe have been among the biggest and scouting in Western Europe is about as liberal as it gets world wide. I think every European national organisation is coed at least at an umbrella level, all where I have heard one way or the other are entirely open to LGBT members and at least 4 are open to atheist members.

 

With all that in mind how do you envisage home hospitality operating? I will leave that question as open as possible as I am curious.

 

It would be nice if this didn’t turn into a rehash of gay/trans/coed discussions. I’m simply curious as to how you see it panning out.

The Bechtel camp is not very close to any major cities. And West Virginia -- and I say this having gone to school there -- makes Blackpool look like Barcelona by comparison.

The state itself has great mountains (by East Coast standards, around 3,000-4800ft), some awesome rivers, decent climbing (in the north) and some very nice forests. Camping around there is decent, though camp grounds can vary in quality. Besides the Interstate roads, the local roads are dangerous at night...mostly due to deer that love to run out and chase your car.

You are pretty far from any major city. Richmond is a good 4.5 hours. DC proper is closer to 6. Charlotte is closer to 4. Winston-Salem closer to 3. Cincy is 4.5 and Pittsburgh around 4. Knoxville is around 4. You get the picture. Any hosts would likely come from that area I suppose.

If I were bringing a group I'd want to show them:

• Washington, DC for the usual sites.
• Drive to Harper's Ferry and look around the local Civil War battlefields.
• Head south along the Blue Ridge in VA hitting the Lurray Caverns...pretty cool.
• Overnight around the New River Gorge and take an outfitter down the white water. If that is too croweded, try the Nantahala a bit further south.
• I'd hike some of the Appalachian Trail if there was time.
• Work my way to Bechtel for the event.
• After the event, I'd try to hit the Outer Banks before heading home.

Sorry Fred, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't imply that BSA made the right decision to change their policy without answering a politically neutral question as to what you think they achieved that they didn't already have.

I don't post much but I read a great deal. I know enough to know you've given your opinion many times here. To avoid answering a benign question as to what you think BSA gained by making the decision they didn't already have is, sorry to say, a dodge.

Now, if you think they did it for political reasons you think might be inflammatory, then please simply say so. That's all.

According to the Denver Area Council it is calendar year.