carebear3895

The most surprising thing out of all of this is that a unit actually followed the correct procedure and submitted a fundraising application 

On 6/5/2019 at 6:36 PM, Eagle1993 said:

sounds like the drop off was due to elimination of some inactive ScoutReach groups 

AKA the money ran out. 

10 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I really like our local DE - but have come to the realization that we don't really need as many of them as we have.  In our area, our DEs largely offset the fact that our district volunteer teams have dwindled.  Our district and councils could opreate at about a third the staff.

So, rather than drive down membership by increasing costs to Scouts, I think it's time for councils to revisit the DE model.  Let districts either shrink or deal with finding volunteers to make them successful.

This is actually an interesting theory I have thought about too, but in a different way. I think one of the big reasons we are seeing the rise of "Mega Councils" (ie. Chicago, Michigan, St. Louis, Indy) is to create a larger corporate structure of Professionals to offset the lack of Volunteers in the BSA now. 

In a lot of places, DE's are just trying to keep afloat sinking Districts. 

When I was talking to the National Director of Cub Scouting, he said they are moving away from the rank specific uniform items, minus the neckerchief and hat. They are just trying to get rid of inventory. 

Personally, what the heck is the $24 "held by the council then billed to national"??

Also, charging units a "council support fee" is such BS.... 

15 minutes ago, MattR said:

The underlying issue is the BSA pays really poorly to new hires at the lowest level and then only promotes from within. So, DE's are mostly those that couldn't find a job elsewhere. Granted, there are a few that really believe in scouting and are doing it even though they're not making much but the majority that I see have little to no experience in scouting or how to run an organization. That's the pool of expertise they have.

My apologies to anyone that works for the BSA that I've offended. Maybe other councils do a better job. I suspect they just live closer to more companies that donate more.

 

Ah the song of my people. 

TBH, I don't think the starting salary is that bad if you're not terrible at managing money. The real kicker is promotions and raises. That's where a lot of good people leave because they don't want to wait 4-8 years to get a decent, family supporting position in a field they actually want. No body wants to be a ground pounding DE forever. 

I could go on and on about Pro life, but I digress for now. 

22 hours ago, ParkMan said:

The GSUSA making these kind of decisions seems like completly the wrong idea to me.  From a marketing perspective, it seems completly backwards to me.

It is....and the unfortunate part is that this seems to be a trend i'm seeing with multiple GSUSA councils 

21 minutes ago, elitts said:

Except for the activities where a parent can substitute for a registered adult leader.  (Currently that list includes merit badge sessions and fundraising events)

See, that's where BSA confuses me. in the FAQ's of the barriers to abuse it says exactly that, but then a few questions down is says Lion/Tiger adult partners don't meet the two deep requirement at Den meetings.  A straight up contradiction. What if a Den meeting is also a fundraising event? How do you know what events are and aren't OK to substitute a parent?!

Sorry for Hijacking the thread. 

5 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

That’s not confusing at all.😳

Barry

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6 hours ago, dedkad said:

Two or more adult leaders be present at all times? 

Yessir.  "Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings."

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

I wonder if Scouts BSA is waiting until after Jambo to file for bankruptcy?  As Harry Einstein said,  insanity is singing the same repeat after me song, over and over again and expecting different results. 

*Sigh*

The Organization is still called Boy Scouts of America. Just the 11-17 program is now called Scouts BSA

RIP those DE's 

15 minutes ago, Terasec said:

i agree,

BSA generally tend to only follow rules when its convenient for them

I asked council and BSA TX about clarifying policy on mixed gender dens,

it was like pulling teeth, they didn't want to acknowledge the issue, just referred me to bsa FAQ website

finally they acknowledged that mixed gender dens is against the rules,

yet they are not enforcing it.

looking the other way on violations is how they handled decades of abuse, 

I have lost all respect for BSA as an entity, 

 

At the end of the day, mixing dens is a better experience for the youth, and isn't that why we are all doing this?

What's National going to do? Send guys like me out to revoke charters if a boy and girl associate with each other at a Den meeting? 

*whispers*

Co-Ed Dens are the norm in the field. 

Officially, I would say only once since they are covered under BSA insurance as a non-registered guest for only one visit. 

5 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

Agree with what you say....BUT I also agree with carebear3895...

Science and technology are a real part of today's world, and no kid growing up can "Be Prepared" without knowing how to deal with it. BSA's inclusion of merit badges in STEM fields is great --- it lets the boys who want to explore those fields do so.  The Nova/Supernova awards are great too --- they help foster awareness of STEM and might also help a boy discover something he wants to pursue as a career.

BUT I agree with carebear3895 because he is referring to "STEM Scouts", which is not a purely optional award within the normal BSA program (where the focus is still on outdoors). STEM Scouts is an entirely different beast in which kids never have to get out in the woods. STEM Scouts is a type of unit (like a pack, a troop, or a ship).  They don't have to camp. They don't have to hike. They don't even have to learn about Environmental Science. It's indoors. It's academic.  Instead of field green uniforms, they have lab coats. Instead of fun, they get extra science classes....YECH!   

Yup. I like STEM Merit Badges and the NOVA stuff too. I have a problem with the program "STEM Scouts". It's not Scouting. The Unit destination is "Lab" for future reference. A couple of bigger Councils have even tried out STEM executives. Basically a DE just for STEM Scouts. 

I'm not sure your graph is exactly accurate. Exploring is under the LFL umbrella, they should not be separated. I believe those 109,613 Explorers are already included in the 313,020 LFL report.

It's very sneaky the way national reported it. 

3 hours ago, TMSM said:

Venturing dropping like a rock. 

Our troop has doubled in the last 3 years. We focused on getting into the Weblos heads early that the boy Scouts program is awesome and then focused on doing the program the way it is said to be done. 

Forget about focusing on girls (or gender) - focus and program and access to webelos and we will be fine. National or Council needs to sell the value of the outdoors and scouting to parents. We need more positive publicity and relavance so where is it? Our District cant even hire a DE!

1. Yes, venturing is dying. Which is incredibly unfortunate because I think it's the best program the BSA has to offer. When I was a kid, I heard so many other kids say "I quit scouts because I just wanted to camp and do fun stuff, I didn't care about the badges". Well that's exactly what venturing offers!! To make it even more gloom, every council has a "Camp Crew" where you register camp staff who are not involved in traditional Scouting. So the total number of actual ventures is even lower than the national report. 

2. National BSA is making the same stupid mistake GSUSA is doing by focusing on STEM as opposed to the outdoors. The whole concept of "STEM Scouts" is idiotic. That's not why you join Scouting. 

 3. Surprised you can't even manage to hire a DE. Usually the problem isn't hiring them, its KEEPING them lol. 

15 minutes ago, MattR said:

And ruthless efficiency. I knew it had to be a Monty Python quote. It took a while.

Well, could it be that cookies are an easier sale than popcorn? If the BSA really wants to cross a line they should start selling cookies. Give the rack a turn.

or Trails End need to consider making a mint chocolate popcorn....HMMM. Minty thin popcorn? 

2 hours ago, Mom2Scout said:

You have to share all the equipment and troop funds.  Our boys, by the way, had an extremely good popcorn sale season and have typically had a very healthy bank account. On top of that, they are told, not asked, how they are going to mentor this new troop and invite them to events, along with sharing meeting space, which is already kind of tight.

Sharing funds is highly, HIGHLY discouraged for very incredibly obvious reasons. Just because Troops are "linked" does not mean they have to share everything. It's designed to be flexible to give units the option to be as close or as separate as they want, just like family Packs. 

The COR is not the word of God. The Committee exists for a reason and to be brutally honest, if parents wanted to say in how the unit runs they should fill out an adult application. 

6 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Yes - That is how the DE and FD and SE are in fact judged, number increases.  Your son in this example is the easiest way to pump up the numbers..."dual" enrollment.  That's two members for the price of one.

Yes there are shenanigans with the membership numbers.  Sadly rather than focus on building good units with a fun and quality program, which will generate growth and membership in the long term, they want the numbers NOW, so sign them up NOW.

This is wrong. A "multiple" registrant doesn't count as two as far as membership goes. If a kid is registered in a Troop and a Crew, he only counts once with traditional membership. Plus the way the database is setup, you literally can't set up two membership accounts for one person. Heck, that's even why a lot of DE's hate recruiting Venturers out of Troops because it doesn't increase membership.  

Trust me, I 100% get Professionals fudge numbers, but this isn't an example of that. You know, some of us actually do our job correctly and ethically.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

From the writer of the article?

That would be interesting.

Barry

oh, I thought you meant interpretation as far as Nationals numbers go. 

23 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

As I said, based on my experience, National's published membership numbers rarely made sense. And who knows how the data is being interpreted. A professional researching ALL the information might provide a more pragmatic result. I certainly would not put much value on opinions from this forum.

The heart of the truth will work it's way to the surface in a year or so. 

Barry

I'd be happy to try and provide some interpretation. 

3 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

 Our CO is the local homeowner's association. 

 

...why have I never thought of this before!

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Perhaps adopt the British model which I believe @Cambridgeskip  described - no CO's, rather parent groups?  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is how GSUSA operates its units