HelpfulTracks

Nothing stops us from teaching additional material. First aid was dropped from the most recent IOLS, but we still teach it, along with a few other topics.

We should teach Scouts/Scouters what they need to know.

Unfortunately, too much is being taught online, which in my opinion, robs participants from some of the greatest benefits - learning from and Fellowship with others, exchange of ideas and the ability to ask questions.

I would think if you can find them (red & whites), you can wear them. Since ANY uniform ever issued is approved for wear, it only makes since old CSPs and Council/Community strips would be approved as well.

Our troop has an annual river clean-up project each year, and a few other Service projects that stay consistent. But the others they vary and change up based on what interests the youth. The great thing is that the Scouts have really latched on to certain service projects and schedule them each year.

Most councils have more than one CSP, if not several at any given time. There may be dozens over the course of a Scouting career.

Uniformity in CSP’s is nearly impossible to achieve, let alone enforce. If your council adds 1,000 Scouts per year and changes it’s CSP in 3 years, do ask/require those 3,000 Scouts to change CSPs?

In my mind, no.

Not to mention, some events ask staff or participants to wear a specific CSP, like Wood Badge Staff or Jamboree participants.

Wear whichever ever issued CSP you think is appropriate. I have several uniforms I have collected over time for different unit types and different Scouting jobs. I’m not sure I have the same CSP repeated unless it is required for some reason and I have more than one uniform for that purpose (e.g. WB staff)

Tough one.

Do you support someone following laws that are morally wrong, for example segregation?

Do you support someone for following their conscience even if you disagree with them morally, for example Sharia Law and stoning someone as punishment?

In the end, part of laws purpose is to remove the ambiguity and variance in different valeus.

I would come down on the side of following the Law but fight like crazy to change those laws I felt we’re morally wrong.

Both our Troop and our Crew have dues.

I am not sure how the Troop dues were set, it was done before we joined and has not changed.

The Crew dues are being determined by the youth in consultation with the Advisors and Committee.

Both units the youth plan the calendar and budget (budget with consultation of Committee Treasure & Unit Leader). The fundraisers are part of the annual planning created by the youth. Though, this past year was the first time the youth did so in the Troop. The youth determine ahead of time which fundraisers will benefit the unit versus the Scout. Usually it is some combination with a percentage going to the unit and percentage to the Scout.

A few comments from a former pro.

 

1) While the council president selectes the nominating committee, the Scout Executive (SE) wields enormous power behind the scenes. I've seen  good people who were proposed for council level position, but because they were not 'Yes Men" and the SE said they would be a bad choice.  Even when those of us in the field wanted someone in particular. We currently have someone who would like to fill a district Key 3 role, but will not be allowed to serve in that role due to the SE. Like Tahawk, that position has been vacant for 2+ years.

 

2) While national does not control who is on district committees, the SE and DE do indeed play a large role.  I know I was under pressure to get rid of some folks. While some I was able to keep, others were not put on the slate of candidates per the SE. Got around it by having the district chairman appoint them into position.

 

3) Do not know about the legal side, but do know that what DavidCO said happen in Chicago did indeed happen. many folks here and elsewhere reported about it.

Yes, our SE and DE have a lot of influence (power) because we trust them, mine have earned that. However, if they were constantly steering us wrong, standing in the way of progress or subverting the by-laws they would have far far less power. Not to mention would likely run into so many legal firestorms it would be impossible for him to function.

The nominating committee is appoint by Michel Surbaugh - and he keeps the secret list of names in his safe, inserted in between the pages of his copy of Jedi Mind Tricks for Dummies..

Nope.

First, the President, who is elected, not the Exec, apoints the nominating committee.

Second, any member of the council can nominate someone in writing, but not from the floor.

Third, National couldn’t pick the slates even if they wanted to. Dozens of committees members x almost 300 Councils would be impossible to manage, let alone knowing enough about each person to know who they wanted.

Finally, whoever told you that the Councils charter was at risk was bluffing. They cannot revoke a charter for following their own bylaws. And if they try then they put the tax exempt status in jeopardy as well as risk piercing the corporate veil and put the executive board in legal jeopardy.

And of course there's yet one more option.  The CO's provide $20 and a place for scouts to meet. Period.  They don't have a genuine interest in the program but provide free meeting space as a community service opportunity.

 

My Venturing Crew CO did neither.

Fair enough and I support that choice. I would support their choice to suspend their charter if they didn’t like the program. But I have no sympathy for them if the CO just does the minimum, does not participate in the district or Council and then complains they have no voice. There is a huge difference in not having a voice and not using that voice.

Was this business as usual for the BSA or was this an exception? Were you previously given prior notice of other membership changes?

I had heard rumors about the change more than a year ago. The concept was raised officially at last Spring's Annual Meeting, possibly sooner.

Absolutely untrue. The CO's have zero power in BSA. The execs have all the power. 

 

The COR's don't show up at council because they all know that it is a sham. It is a waste of their time. They have no real vote or real authority in council decisions.

 

The only way to drain the swamp is to deny them our money.

 

Unfortunately, the execs are a bit like the conquering machines in The Matrix. If you block off their sunlight, they might just decide to use you as a battery. 

If the Exec in your Council has ALL the power then it is because others have seeded it to him. The Council Exec's don't even have a vote. However, every CO does. In fact if you are telling the CoR NOT to, or even that he does not have to, show up and vote then you are not upholding your end of the Charter. When you signed off on the Charter you agreed that the CoR would represent your organization at District and Council.

But you do know that the majority of CO's were opposed to the recent changes, don't you?  If the CO's in BSA have so much power, then why did the execs feel so free to ignore them?

 

Is that on topic?

No I don't know that to be true or false. I am not sure how you know that either.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct and most CO's oppose allowing females into Cubs and creating a females equivalent to Boy Scouts. If CO's were doing what it said in the Charter they would have been present at District meetings to vote in people they want for District Chair. They would also be showing up to Council meeting to vote in the people who think like they do the to Council Executive Board. Those people (who would likely include several CoR's or IH if CoR's showed up to vote) would elect a President that agreed with them. And they would have the authority to remove a Council Exec that tried to ignore them.

That Council Executive Board would be the one who appoints who represents (and votes) at the Regional and National Level.

In turn those people elect the National Board, who hires the CSE. The CoR's HAVE the power if they choose to use it. If they choose to not use it then that too is their choice.

Then drain it.

CO’s have more power than any single group, if they show up and vote.

At a District level CO’ out number all others 4or 5:1, at Council 3 or 4:1.

The CO’s absolutely have the opportunity and authority to control how BSA operates.

This is basically the same argument that is used by cowardly dictators who use innocent civilians, mostly women and children, as human shields to protect themselves and their military assets from attack.

 

Wow, that is more than a little over the top.

Is there anything about Scouting you like?

I was just reading our Troop's bylaws and a new scout patrol is written into our Troop's bylaws!   I could use some help coming up with a way to try work with our parent committee to get this particular detail changed.  

Here is the language from our Troop bylaws.  Any suggestions on how to re-write? How are patrols typically formed -- by the Scoutmaster? 

 

ETA: I could just propose that the Troop eliminate all the bylaws and just operate under BSA policy!  People would likely freak, but it might be interesting!  

My thoughts are simple. Why are adults deciding (not to mention writing rules) on how the troop should operate it's program?

First, the Scoutmaster, not the Committee, is responsible for the program. Second, the Scoutmaster should not be deciding either. His job is to guide the troop, through the SPL and PLC. The PLC should be coming up with whatever additional rules they feel are needed on how the troop functions. If they think they need NSP's then they can decide to have them. Same for mixed age, permanent, same age, temporary patrols etc.

I respect where you are trying to go with the troop, but it is still adults making the decisions. Decisions that should be in the hands of the Scouts. Adults should be watching and advising to make sure the Scouts stay within BSA/CO policies, but everything else should be left to the Scouts.

Yes, many have issues getting up in front of people and talking. So you are not alone. I personally don't have any issues with it, in fact I am sure some folks wish I would just shut up at times. LOL.

But I have trained a number of people that range from uncomfortable to sheer panic and tears. Both youth and adult.

I suggest trying to figure out what it is that causes you such anxiety. If you can learn to overcome it you will be a great example to your youth that have exactly the same fears. In fact just the act of trying to overcome it is a great example.

Having spoken God only knows how many times, in all kinds of settings and with some outstanding speakers I can say this, everyone has fears of some kind, everyone screws up presentations, everyone makes mistakes. It is not the end of the world, nothing bad will happen. But you will almost certainly get better each time you do it.

You are a better man than I am, Gunga Din! 

 

The ignorance of youth is a wonderful thing.

 

The wisdom of age allows one to know exactly where the land mines are located. 

LOL! I am not youthful anymore, but I still cling to my youth exuberance (AKA ignorance).  

How quickly we forget that OA's byline is "Scouting's National Honor Society"

Well, in the first place, OA was open to Explorers. See Mike Walton's reply in https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/07/18/female-youth-order-of-the-arrow/ regarding the history of OA including Explorerrs, then closing that door in the 90's.

The contrived "troop/team" specification was all to could avoid saying "no girls allowed."

Like I said, it would be fine by me if the up and said that. But, when it no longer recognizes a swath of the organization's honorable campers, what kind of society is it really?

Okay, maybe I am missing it, but he appears to be saying the 1st class was a requirement for OA and that a loophole in Explorers allowed members that had attained 1st class in Boy Scouts were eligible. Thus Explorers that had not earned 1st Class, be they boys or girls, were not eligible.

  Also, for fifth grade girls earning the Arrow of Light award in February of 2019, to where do they cross over, if there is no 11-17 program for girls?

My marginally informed opinion is that BSA4G Troops will be formed in late 2018 in time to be ready for 2019 Crossovers.

There are many of us that have already sailed these treacherous waters many times.  But there has always been plenty of maps and support in those processes to help minimize the risks.  BSA does not have a sound track record on that process.  Sure they have worked many years on a declining co-ed program called Exploring/Venturing, but back in the 1970's when Exploring went co-ed there were a ton of problems.  I worked two years in that program in a Council setting, organizing these groups.  It was pretty much running barefoot through broken glass.  I was 20 at the time and weathered a lot of storms and learned a lot of lessons.

 

Times have changed.....  But so have I.  Do I really want to go back and do it all over again in a far different world of today?

 

Hap Pigsley, a motivational speaker on industrial safety once said out of 330 risky behaviors, one will get away with it 300 times, but 29 of those times will result in injury and one on average will result in death.  He then held out a large jar of candy to the audience and said, help yourself.  There's 330 pieces of candy in there.

 

How many times is one going to reach into the jar knowing and having experienced the problems that lie ahead?  I am currently grooming one of my ASM's to take over the troop.  There's no way I'm going to let 45+ years of a good scouting career go down the toilet on the word of some angry kid.

As I said I cannot and will not fault your for making that personal decision. I will thank you or all you have done and continue to do for Scouting.

All the YPT and policies in the world are no silver bullet, there are inherent risk involved in dealing with people of all ages. Today's cultural climate seems to be even more loaded with land mines. I just hope more Scouters than not are willing to navigate the mine field.

 little over a year ago, some things were done to make it more youth led, AND IT WAS WORKING! Was it perfect? NO. Was it chaotic? YES. Did the Scouts make mistakes? ABSOLUTELY! And did they learn from those mistakes? YES INDEED! Did they have room to improve? OF COURSE THEY DID!

 

But apparently the change is not fast enough for some folks, especially the new parents because I have heard them complain about how things are different from Cub Scouts.

And that is Boy Scouting in a nutshell. And Yes is VASTLY different from Cub Scouts, more importantly, it is meant to be.

Questions

• What concerns the parents about letting their son camp "alone"? And by alone, it clearly appears to mean without them, since he would be with other leaders and scouts. They may have valid reasons, but I would at least inquire. If it is just mom and dad's anxiety about letting go of their baby, well... he has to grow up sometime.
• I don't think it is out of line for a troop to require YPT for any adult going on an overnight, but being a registered leader is a bit much. Although there are dozens of ways to register with BSA that don't require the "one hour a week" obligation. (my assumption is that they want the comfort of a BSA background check).
• I completely agree that you should not just pass him off, that sets a bad precedent for everyone, not to mention it is just against the Oath and Law.
• I am not as familiar with Cubs and AOL requirements, but if the requirement only requires an outing (and not an overnight) then drive him up first thing Saturday morning and leave Saturday evening, if that meets the requirement.
• Finally, if the is trying to crossover to a troop and mom and dad won't/can't camp with him and will not let him camp without them, his boy scout career is likely to be boring and short anyway. He cannot advance without camping. So what is their plan of action going forward? If they don't have a plan, then unfortunately they are likely sinking this young mans BSA career.

Gender dynamics already exist in Scouting, as we have coed Crews and female Scouters.

In my experience neither gender has a monopoly on drama, I have seen it from male and female, from youth and adults.

What has changed is the outlook on integrity. Years ago, a person that was seen has having high integrity was given the benefit of doubt. They were innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, a few, and too many, used that position to take advantage of others. So now the pendulum has swung and benefit of doubt is given less freely. Worse, if they are proven innocent, the damage has already been done.

Perhaps even worse, too many have staked out a position of judgement based on their point of view, be it political, issue advocacy or something else dear to them. Facts and truth fall by the wayside, guilt or innocence is predetermined based on an individuals perspective rather than facts and truth.

It does make for a dangerous waters. It does make one question their resolve to stick with programs like BSA, why risk it?

But today's current climate makes BSA all that more important. Most Scouters I know very much believe in the tenets of Scouting, they take the Oath and Law seriously. Instilling those values in the next generation is more important than ever. I have yet to see an organization that is able to do that better than BSA.

Even with the risk inherent in dealing with youth and possible untrue accusations, are we risking more than our friends in the military, police, first responders or the medical field? They put their life and health on the line to protect us, keep us safe and alive. As important as our reputations are to leading a productive life, we are not putting our actual life on the line.

I cannot, and would not, fault anyone who decides that putting their reputation at risk is too much to ask, and decides they can no longer be a Scout leader. However, instilling character and integrity in the next generation, showing our youth a better way and giving them opportunities to succeed, helping create a better society are all important tasks that we perform as Scout leaders. So I hope before anyone blows taps on their Scouting career they take stock in what they have contributed to a better society and what they can still contribute. Hopefully, the benefits outweigh the risk. 

If OA is a Boy Scout honor society, how is it that anyone would think it something open to Venturing in the first place?  They are two entirely different programs unless a scout is registered in both programs.  Even then the double registration is valid only in Boy Scouts because no elections have ever been done in the Venturing program for OA.  If a scout registers in both programs and basically does not follow through with a commitment to both, it would jeopardize their ability to get into OA.  It would be no different for a scout to be a Boy Scout SPL working on rank and then never showing up for any of the Boy Scout meetings or activities.

 

I make it clear in my troops that if a scout is going to register in two different programs, they had better give full support to both and the blending of the two isn't acceptable unless stated by BSA policy.  If the rank requirement says attend 10 scout activities in the Boy Scout Handbook, Venturing activities don't count towards those 10.  If the OA requirement is XX number of nights camping as a scout, Venturing camping doesn't count.

 

The Webelos requirements make it very clear that for AOL, a Webelos scout must attend a SCOUT activity.  That's two different programs, but it is spelled out clearly in BSA material this is the way it is to happen.  

 

After all, why wouldn't Cub Scouts, if they happen to meet the criteria be eligible to join OA?  To me it's the same.  OA is not, nor ever was a part of the Venturing program.  The only reason there are adult females in the OA is because they came in through the Boy Scout program having made contributions to that program.

You are absolutely correct, OA is Boy Scouts National Honor Society, so I have never understood the argument people use with Venturing. Although I do think BSA muddied the water by allowing Teams. Teams have, or had, elements of Troops and elements of Crews, so allowing Teams but not Crews was a Pandora's box.

As for requirements between Troops and Crew, I am going from memory (i.e. I am not going to look it up), but somewhere in officil documentation I have read that most things (there are some exceptions listed) can crossover when it comes to Troops and Crews. Camping, hiking, first aid, backpacking requirements can be met in one unit even if that activity was done with the other unit. The caviate is that it must have been done after registration in the unit that it is being applied too. In other words, if a scout earning Hiking MB last Summer and joined a crew last week. Those hiking activities do not count for anything in the Crew. However, if he goes hiking this week with the Troop, then it can count toward the Crew advancement.

I would suppose in the end, that the acceptance of those activities is entirely in the hands or the MB counselor, or the SM/Advisor for advancement.

One of the problems we have in our council and the troop I was serving at the time, the boys took MB's that aren't taught back in the council.  Finding counselors for partials was hard enough, finding counselors for obscure MB's is impossible.

I can see that, particularly in a small council or remote district in larger councils. Ours is a decent mid-sized council and we still struggle with some MB's. Which is one reason we alternate between our council camp and near by council camps of larger councils.