carebear3895

On 5/19/2018 at 11:47 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

While we personally may not have hired them, they were hired to serve us. I have seen all kinds of execs; good, bad, lazy, industrious, and even criminal. There is a lot of work done behind the scenes to support the units. One of the reasons why my district is suffering like it is ( see my  Breaking Point post) is that we do not have a full time DE to support us and help recruit the folks we need. As for mistreatment, that is one of the reasons many of the good ones leave. My council went through 9 DEs and 2 mid level executives in the 18 months I was a pro. 

You know why I think it is that way? Most if not all SE's were DE's like in the 70's, 80's,or 90's. From my understanding, the norm back then was to treat DE's pretty much like dirt. My guess is those SE's today don't see a reason to treat current DE's any better, because of what they went through.

I'll admit there is a huge culture problem in the profession. On the plus side, I actually do see it getting better on a council by council basis. 

On 5/19/2018 at 11:32 AM, David CO said:

They didn't do anything for us. 

 

you right. We just chill at the office and make lists of how to make life harder for volunteers. By the way have you turned in your FoS pledge card yet?

22 minutes ago, Saltface said:

He's being a little bit disingenuous when he says withholding FOS donations doesn't send a message to National Council. According to his own numbers, Grand Teton Council has up to seven seats at National.

Something seems shady with that council. To me if seems like they focused almost all their resources on fundraising, not membership because they knew they could rely on the LDS to automatically meet their numbers. That would makes sense for the United Way severing ties (which you never see unless that council has a large fund surplus). But it looks like that decision to not recruit non-LDS scouts is about to blow up in their faces. 

Also, very weird to see a scout executive not wearing silver loops or a SE patch. 

3 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I think GSUSA does a much better job on advertising, especially on the internet then BSA. Agree or disagree with their program they seem to have a much clearer picture conceptually of the direction of the program. Their problem is that it is hard to hear over the roar of "cookies".

I think the BSA accepting girls is the best thing to happen to the GSUSA ironically. The past months are the first time I've ever seen them promote any of their programs outside of cookies. 

5 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Not only that, but it immediately brings to mind "Scout Me Out" (which actually rhymes).  This was not a well-thought out marketing slogan, but they probably spent millions on it.

So THAT'S WHY they raised membership fees!

10 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

I don't see the graphic.  I am looking at https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/scout-me-in/.  Should I be looking somewhere else?

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/05/02/scout-me-in/

it was on Bryan on Scouting

2 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

I agree with that.  But I also think this is going to take some getting used to.

And, speaking of our program, the BSA has been saying since the beginning of this thing that there were going to be two separate programs at ages 11-17, one for boys and one for girls.  There were charts and diagrams and everything, showing two separate programs.  CSaE Surbaugh made it clear, using various terminology, that the BSA was not going to "mess with" (my term) Boy Scout troops.  Now it appears that there will be one program, "Scouts BSA."  Will there still be separate TROOPS?  I see no mention of that in the press release.  And if there are, unfortunately that does get back to what things are called.  If a CO has a boy troop and a girl troop, will they have the same number?  Will they be Troop123B and 123G?  (Or "M" and "F"?)  I agree that names are not the most important thing, but I do hope there is going to be more clarity on this from National.

In the press release, BSA had an info-graphic of linked troops still. So yes, they will still be "separate"

2 minutes ago, FireStone said:

This feels like a stop-over change to me. The organization is still "Boy Scouts of America," and "BSA" is still in the program name for the girl groups. This doesn't feel like a final solution to the name problem when it comes to addressing this now being a co-ed organization. I suspect there will eventually be another change to step further into this co-ed role. 

I have a sneaky suspicion you are correct. 

I, for one, look forward to the National annual meeting in late May. That's when BSA loves to do their mic drop announcements.

Also it's not true co-ed  (on paper at least)

4 minutes ago, TMSM said:

I disagree - I'll support my scouts if this is what they want to do. They have been taught in school how to protest and they want to bring this issue to the public. We are a boy led troop so I am going to let them resist.

Just keep running your units programs like normal. No need to make your troop into an underground resistance group

1 minute ago, CalicoPenn said:

Fair enough question.  The name of the Boy Scout program is changing to Scouts BSA.  No one is going to call themselves a Scout BSA.  Boys are likely to continue to call themselves Boy Scouts in a more formal discussion - but girls will likely just call themselves Scouts (since Girl Scout is actually trademarked).

That being said - it is highly likely that everyone here has used the term Scout or Scouts to refer to the boys many times before.  In all my years, I have never, ever heard a Scoutmaster, an SPL, a camp staffer, a Patrol Leader, etc. ever try to gather a group of scouts by hollering out "OK, Boy Scouts - Gather Around".  What do they say (if it's not something like "hey guys) is OK, Scouts - gather around.  We've all been calling groups of our Scouts as Scouts all along.  And Packs?  Most will just say Cubs and not Cub Scouts.

 

 

It was mentioned before, but to reiterate Venturing is technically called "Venturing BSA", but of course no one goes around saying they are part of Venturing BSA. 

I also wouldn't stray away from the thought that the BSA in "Scouts BSA"  was put in place to prevent any push back from the GSUSA who already threatened legal action with trademark violations. 

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

6. BSA color nail polish.

Whoever is in charge at National Supply is either getting promoted, or is getting fired 

On 4/28/2018 at 5:00 AM, WAKWIB said:

I know it has to be depressing to see a old familiar camp fade into history, but I don't see it as a tragic thing. The Greater St. Louis Area Council has 7 other camp properties to serve the youth in their area.  

yea I guarantee you this won't be the only GSLAC camp to go. 

24 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

That's interesting.  I am wondering if that (at least for Program Directors) is still going to be the case in my council, with its recent reorganization.  We no longer have "District Executives," though we still have districts, with their own volunteers, program, roundtables etc.  The six districts have been divided into two regions with three districts each.  (I a not sure whether they call it a region or something else.)  Each reason has a Program Executive, a Unit Service Executive, a Development Executive and a Field Service Executive, all of whom report to the Field Service Director for that reason.  So I would think that someone with some years as a Program Executive for half the council would be a logical candidate for Program Director. Right?  Or would that person be leapfrogging over the Field Service Director?

I guess it also means that my council now has a Director of Field Service, 2 Field Service Directors and 2 Field Service Executives.  I'm sure that won't be confusing. 

In my time, a Director of Field Service (sometimes called assistant scout executives) is in charge of all membership and finance within the council. They are the #2 guy under the SE. They don't handle much on the program side of things, but Program Directors traditionally report to them. Field Service Directors (aka Field Directors) are middle management types, who directly oversee Unit service executives (DEs and SDEs), with membership being their focus. I've heard of a field service executive, I don't know what they do tho

Program Executives (I think their official title is Paraprofessionals), are either called like "cub scout specialists" are usually not full time staff, and I don't believe they hold BSA commissions. There is only one example I have ever heard of a Program Executive becoming a Program Director. Its very rare. Her promotion was very much looked down upon by other professionals, simply because she never "earned her stripes" as a DE. Program Director positions are highly desired.

On 4/17/2018 at 12:59 PM, swilliams said:

Girl Scouts leaders are not confident the Boy Scouts will be able to offer adequate programming for girls. 

This GSUSA argument really drives me up the wall. First of all, Girl Scouts has a serious program issue of their own that they turn a blind eye to, which is why their program is failing. The whole "we know what girls want because we are girls" is so stupid, and is setting them on a path for continued failure.

Second of all, no body is forcing girls to "convert" or join Cubs Scouts. If a girl chooses BSA over GSUSA on her own will, I think that should highlight everything. Venturing has been around for 20 years, which actually is co-ed. Heck, even 2 of the 5 national youth officers are females!  "Adequate programming"....give me a break.

On 4/7/2018 at 12:05 PM, MattR said:

We got a new DE and he had no scouting experience. Zero. DEs become SEs become national. Most of the DEs in my council had no scouting experience as kids. So after decades of this how many people at national truly understand fun with a purpose? How many have run a troop or pack? How can they help if they've never done it before?

Scouting is certainly sustainable. I'm just not sure about the way the BSA is currently run.

While DE's are considered "Unit-serving Executives", I'm pretty sure it's well known program and how a troop runs is not a huge responsibility of our Jobs. It's good and bad the way BSA does promotions. It's nice knowing that 99% of the time, everybody in a SE or national role started out as a DE somewhere and worked their way up. 

The bad is that many SE's or national guys were DE literally decades ago. I have no problem saying many are out of touch with the program. The honest truth is you are promoted if you show great numbers.  So DE's in huge councils where there is more TAY tend to show better numbers, tend to get promoted. The dudes in smaller rural councils, tend to get left behind. In the local councils, it's tough to find qualified people for Program Director and camping director positions. Why? Because the professional pipeline prepares literally nobody for that. Those are positions I believe should be direct hires, not promoted from DE's. 

13 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

My understanding was that during in person training, this was the message given by trainers.  So now the question is, is this trainers and district/council staff taking liberties and embellishing?  

I have access to the facilitator training. Just went through the slides again to be sure and I didn't see anything in the instructor notes

On 2/6/2018 at 9:50 AM, David CO said:

The same message that is sent when scouters buy positions on the council. BSA is all about money.

*Cough* EXECUTIVE BOARD *Cough*

Get to wear nifty "Platinum" Shoulder loops

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Hopefully GSUSA, unlike the BSA, will listen to its members.

The only thing I've ever liked more about GSUSA over BSA is they allow all older youth members to cast executive board votes.

19 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

 

It was really boring at times, especially when it was mostly the same professionals over and over again. I wish they included more real situations (ex: parents of victims, or a re-enactment of a actual case) and situations that would actually happen. 

That's one thing the old yo1 YPT had over the new one IMO. As cheesy as they were, I liked that they included scouting specific scenarios such as a leader walking off with a scout, or the scout taking pictures by the showerhouse. Plus in the old one they reiterated Two-deep in almost every training module, which I think they only mentioned once in the new YPT2.

Overall, I think YPT2 looks prettier and has more in depth information about Child Abuse in general, but I think its a less effective training tool for Leaders

Oh my god National is really doing this...........Stupid

On 2/23/2018 at 5:38 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Regarding the 1998 stats, take them with a grain of salt. I know there was some inflation, i.e. Ronnie Holmes and Greater AL Council. While that is the largest one known, there were inflated stats all over.

Problem is.....even the current numbers are inflated. 

20 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Is throwing bodies at the problem the answer? Or do they listen to DEs as to what their issues are and, maybe, make organizational changes to alleviate the problems?

Actually I think it is a possible solution. DE's are spread way to thin, and less volunteers are stepping up. I think DA's are a good thing, However, it's just a temporary band-aid to a much larger ideology issue coming from national. Until that's fixed, DE's are still going to hate their jobs/lives and leave. 

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As for Venturing and Awards, advancement was never meant to be a method in Venturing. They were meant to be recognition for folks interested in them.

 

 

 

Agreed, but I think they are vital for retention purposes. Anybody can plan a trip with their buddies, the awards and uniforming help make Venturing attractive