HashTagScouts

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

FYI, not trying to be negative, but I'm in a sour mood because of a conversation I had with an ASM today. More on that later.

It is a great idea for a normal troop. The problem making families would skip the camp out. Seriously we had the patrols do a 5 mile hike at a well established state park, and they were freaking out because adults were not going with the Scouts. While the other Scouts would have fun and benefit, the problem makers would not.

Along those lines, one of the things that helped renew interest in the program and help with some of the challenges with the youth and Scouters was our AT trips. Basically  the youth raced ahead and had camp set up and chilling while the adults took their time getting to the campsite for the nite. While it was not the entire troop, it really got the older Scouts pumped, and it infected the younger guys. Even one of the ASMs who really didn't believe in Patrol Method and Boy Led concepts, the one who once said he "hopes the Scouts fail so they realize they need us" had an epiphany and saw Boy Led in action on that trip. And of course once he converted to the Dark Side, he moves ouot of state :).

Anyway, back to the conversation I had with an ASM today. Spent an hour talking.  He is concerned about the trouble makers suing the Scouters and CO over the matter. Both families have "influence and affluence," coming from old money families locally. Both are used to getting their ways as a result. And I was reminded of the implied threat one of the fathers made at a parents' meeting. He asked if we could give him 100% guarantee nothing would happen to his son if he was with the troop. I am not joking. And from some of the comments the dad has made, and hearing stories about the family from others who have dealt with them,  I see them suing.

Use his words against him as part of your "have a nice day" dismissal:

Mr. Jones, we understand you have concerns and that you feel strongly about those concerns.  While we do absolutely take safety seriously, the very intent of the scouting program is to empower scouts to run THEIR program, not ours.  If you believe that we are not the right fit for your child, we can respect that and feel it is best that we part amicably, and sincerely hope that you are able to find another unit that aligns to your vision of what is "the right troop". 

5 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

According to the Boy Scout Handbook, "A Scout is helpful. . . . Scouts want the best for everyone and act to make that happen."  How can we justify excluding anyone from the Scouting program if it would be good for them?  If we want the best for everyone, doesn't that naturally include membership in Scouting?  Isn't the point of being helpful to focus on the needs of others rather than just our own comfort?

According to the Boy Scout Handbook, "A Scout is friendly. A Scout is a friend to all. . . . He offers his friendship to people of all races, religions, and nations, and he respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. . . . Friends are also able to celebrate their differences, realizing that real friends can respect the ideas, interests, and talents that make each person special."  When we turn people away from our program because their beliefs are different from our own, are we living up to this point of the Scout Law?

According to the Boy Scout Handbook, doing my duty to my country, as stated in the Scout Oath, means:  "Help the United States continue to be a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and your responsibilities as a citizen."  When we systematically exclude people from our program because of their religious beliefs, are we helping the United States to be "a strong and fair nation"?  Is isolating ourselves from people with different opinions one of our responsibilities as a citizen of the United States?

Even if we have the right, as a private organization, to exclude people who don't share one of our ideals, is voluntarily exercising that right consistent with the other ideals, purposes, goals, and duties we profess as members of the Scouting program? 

Unfortunately, this post above all else is the issue for me.  We cannot preach it is OK to only follow 7 points, 8 points, or 11 points of the Scout Law.  It is all.  Do we give an automatic boot? I would say no, but that does not mean advancement to the highest levels are possible for that youth.  From Life, requirement #2:  As a Star Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life.

Option B, but don’t wait, do it now. Offer them that the troop will transfer 100% of their fees to a new troop now so they can fully charter for 2019.

You folks all hit some good marks, and my observations from the past 5 years being back in Scouting with my son generally fall in line with your perceptions. I also began to really talk to “older scouts” (as well those who were 18+ that still came around the Lodge events. Personally, yes National got very skittish on “the secret society” concerns, and the directive today on Ordeal is basically if the candidate shows up, and stays through the induction ceremony, that is all that is required. You can’t make them do the challenges, and anyone who wants to know all what goes on during the weekend (parent), you can’t ignore their request.

The cub ceremonies are a loss, but in my own view, they were not doing much to actually motivate youth getting guns ho on being outdoorsman in recent years. Arguably, the new scripts are an attempt by National to get scouts interested in high adventure, though in a very cornball way that I don’t see will be impactful.

Overall, I just see less and less interest by scouts to do high adventure. Even just weekend canoe or backcountry backpacking weekends are a struggle to get them interested. Couple with the number of adult leaders that have zero interest, and it is not a good recipe. 

My honest suggestion to our Lodge/Section youth leaders has been to rethink their model. Having a “fellowship weekend” once or twice a year, where board games, Magic card games, movies and and flashlight tag at the council camp is a huge opportunity wasted. You aren’t going to get the 14+ year old Paul Bunyan type Scouts to waste their time (or money) on it. Plan a weekend that involves going out and doing something that requires using scoutcraft skills might just get the scout who is bored with his troops’ car camping, adult planned weekends to come and be with other scouts from other units that are in the same boat. Let OA be an avenue for delivering scouting in a way that many troops are lacking. It may not draw back the scouts or troops that have drawn themselves away from council camporees/Klondike derby, etc. (IMO many of those units withdrew because they didn’t see those events giving their scouts a challenge), but it gives the OA the opportunity to be special to the scouts who want to be involved in something that is more mature, without just harping the $1,000+ high adventure base opportunities or NOAC.

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

Wow...amazing how fast the councils are trying to separate themselves from National.  All the notices are almost identical as if "someone" had prepared a boilerplate for each council.  We hope National can get out of their mess but it's not our problem.

The message in our council was basically identical to Circle 10, so yes, it is a boilerplate.

A photo of the scouts (with holiday season, perhaps you have that opportunity that the pack or troop is gathered and can herd them together for a quick shot) and perhaps a card signed by as many of the youth as you can is a wonderful gift.  Most leaders that I have seen step away cherish the memories they made, and probably have more gear than they care to admit they built up in their years in the program

The boat sounds like something that indeed could be decisive, especially if someone is using it for personal use far more than the scouts are using it.  Biggest issue here from what you have told us though, is as @SSScout and @scoutldr point out- if the church is defunct, then this former pastor is NOT the COR as there is no Charter Organization here! That means there is not really a troop, and you absolutely have right to question the spending of any money, as all that money is questionable as to who "owns" it.  Troops do not actually own $, they can fundraise, but those funds all technically belong to CO of their troop.  Now, you could form a group called the Friends of Scouting for XYZ township or something to be the CO, but you really need the DE or your council registrar to advise on how to do that appropriately.  

2 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

No miracles required.  Local control.  The experienced local volunteers who serve as commissioners and committee members are able to assess the quality of a unit program and the competence of a Scout leader.  All that would be required to shut down a unit with a long history of poor program is that the unit not recharter.  And you get to that with a series of conversations with the unit leadership, the Chartered Organization Representative, the Scouts, the families, and the head of the chartered organization.  Of course, that is going to be after a couple of years' worth of prior conversations with unit leadership, the Chartered Organization Representative, and maybe the head of the chartered organization about the unit program.

Disrupting the system in place now would obviously be a very difficult challenge, and one that would probably leave many units in a scramble.  The reality that a COR really has no training requirements about what the program even is leaves an obvious void on that person taking control over quality and what is actually going on in the unit.  Current unit for my son is chartered by American Legion- the "COR" changes every year, as it is the newly elected Post Commander that holds that title.  Fortunately, the current Post Commander has served in that role in the past, his son was a Scout (and he served as a troop committee member in those days), so he has understanding of the program and its actual workings.  What do you do with the COR who won't even take the very basic My.Scouting.org training module?

7 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

No, I would think not.

I'm not familiar with how much discretion individual councils have in that regard either.

You can search open DE job postings on nationals website. You won’t see a massive amount of difference in salary from one rural area to another, or one urban area to another. Whenever I hear a unit leader make a snide remark at how well paid staff is, my stomach churns. It takes a special person to leave a corporate job just to go into being a professional Scouter if they are looking at the financials.

Considering our current CSE was in charge of HR for the BSA as his prior job, and there was not drastic change to comp for the DE postition on his promotion, I don’t see it happening now.

I personally would love to go back to the earlier days of the BSA, where the notion of the need for paid staff was a result of challenges of too much having to go to National (the first councils were directed by volunteers, not paid SE’s, and being snail mail was the only way to get chartering done or membership applications processed, the idea was councils could do it in shorter time).

5 hours ago, Jahaza said:

In that case, I'm left not really understanding what you mean by "The lack of actual requirement for anything related to outdoors beyond First Class as well."

But there have never been such requirements other than merit badges, unless you count the brief period when the participation requirement read "While a Life Scout, work actively as a leader in meetings, outdoor activities, and service projects of your unit" 1958-1965.

Many used to actually enforce a minimal measure of what it meant to "serve actively in your troop" in terms of leadership PORs, which by general rule of thumb from my time as a youth was 75% of all troop activities, and campouts were part of that.  I see ever increasing numbers of units that have no minimum criteria, and not so coincidentally have issues of getting older scouts to actually go on campouts.   

I'm sure right now National Supply has  a boatload of debt with all the skorts they've ordered readying for the cub launch and all the new Scouts BSA branded merch they ordered for 2019.

Local camps are council property, and many of them are actually private or public trusts, and not actually owned by BSA or councils.  Both Philmont and Summit are held in trusts as well, so not like BSA could sell that (expenses of operating thee, whole different story).  I have no idea about Seabase or Northern Tier, but assume those are held in trusts or at least there are restrictions that they can't be sold.  The optics of the whole thing are more the damaging part.

A couple other articles:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/boy-scouts-weighs-bankruptcy

https://www.scsun-news.com/story/news/local/new-mexico/2018/12/12/lawsuit-accuses-boy-scouts-negligence-new-mexico-abuse-case/2289026002/

12 hours ago, Jahaza said:

Camping merit badge is still required and so is outdoor cooking (both camp and trail) for the Cooking merit badge.

While some outdoor requirements have gone away since I became an Eagle  in 1999 (like thr option for the more indoor Sustainability instead of the outdoor oriented Environmental Science), Cooking, with its outdoor element, only became required in 2014.

@qwazse beat me to it- a great number of the Eagle scouts I have come to know from recent years had completed Camping/Cooking MB requirements by the time they were Star.   

3 hours ago, Setonfan said:

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Having thought about this over the years, and having noticed what you have noticed, I think what happened is that BSA began watering down outdoor-related advancement requirements, particularly in the Tenderfoot through First Class ranks (maybe to encourage more rapid advancement to First Class), began moving away from high-impact camping practices (lots of fun, little thought required) to environmentally friendly practices (more thinking and planning necessary), and began adding safety-related restrictions in the Guide to Safe Scouting.  Together, these shifts created the impression that BSA was taking outdoor fun out of the program.  But I think what was really happening was that BSA was and continues to be encouraging outdoor adventure as much as ever, and providing great venues for it, but offering fewer incentives to Scouts to participate in outdoor adventure (fewer outdoor-related advancement requirements, less pyromaniac and tree-chopping fun) and more dis-incentives to leaders to participate in outdoor adventure (G2SS removing some activities, more training and certifications and approvals and experience and fitness required).  

The lack of actual requirement for anything related to outdoors beyond First Class as well.  Youth of today are growing up in such a different environment, on many levels, and the numbers who are into outdoor activities like hiking, camping, biking, even fishing are smaller in many parts of the US.  Speaking here in MA, the Boy Scout membership numbers are so horribly decreased even in the last 15 years, that council mergers were a necessity to decrease expenses.  And we are not done, there will be even more consolidation to come.  The safety bubble has also contributed  to a lack of actual integrity to programs.  I have posted on the forums a bit about this- my son changed troops because the program he was in was not at all focused on anything "high adventure" related.  Even small things, like the 5 mile hike requirement for Tenderfoot was ignored- "oh, the kids did 3 miles, that is close enough".  My son became an Eagle, and he did absolutely none of the Camping MB requirement #9 activities in that troop- he did the needed requirements tagging along with his Scouting friends and their units.  That's really not something that made him proud, and even less so considering that he saw like 10 other kids become Eagle in his time there that also had never done any of those activities.  That troop is not at all alone, I could say that about 1 out of 4 troops I encounter in this area are on the same path.  The leaders will say "kids in my troop aren't into doing those things", and really, that is perfectly fine.  But, then why are you ignoring they aren't doing them and signing off on rank advancement and MBs? 

I am absolutely certain that there are still many, many folks out there delivering Scouting as it was intended- even in the GSUSA.  But I absolutely fear the things that we discuss here about the GSUSA are already infecting a great deal of our own membership.  And the biggest challenge for the BSA is how do we stop it? 

9 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

BSA has been very explicit in saying that no advancement requirements are being changed to accommodate our new members.  Further, this membership change for Cub Scouts and (what is currently) Boy Scouts was a long time in coming, with decades of controversy and litigation against BSA seeking admission of girls.  The stated reasons for this change now are demand by families for a single organization for their boys and girls, and demand by girls to fully participate in these BSA programs.  While we can't accurately predict what things will be like in fifteen years, my conclusion from the past and recent history of this issue is that any "dumbing down" of any aspect of the program in order to accommodate girls is out of the question, at least for the next few years.  The loudest howls of protest would come from the girls.  I think another effect of admission of girls is that extra care that will be taken to ensure that standards are maintained and advancement is "by the book" -- and that the resulting checking and tightening of advancement practices will also weed out some laxity that has crept into the system.  Additionally, I think that girls in the program will raise the level of competition -- and achievement.  And finally, if BSA is smart in its marketing, it will seek to differentiate BSA even more from GSUSA, and the obvious vehicle for that is the appeal of outdoor adventure to girls.  Look for tweaks to advancement requirements that increase the quantity and variety of outdoor adventure requirements.

I don't believe that "dumbing down" is at all going to be resulting because girls are being admitted- from all that I experience in my area, I feel the dumbing down has already been happening.  I am in agreement to @Eagledad's sentiments that what this organization was perceived at before has changed.  If "it isn't all about the Eagle', BSA would not keep making the point in all this Scouts BSA marketing, it would just be understood and implied by saying that girls are going to have the same opportunities as boys. 

Sentiment I heard from about 8 staff members this summer that are Life scouts- "i want to get my Eagle done before the change".  Here's the thing about all of this for me: it isn't about bashing girls, it isn't about just the past traditions, it isn't about what I or any adult desires- the youth of this organization should be the ones deciding the membership policies, and the name of their organization should they so chose to change it. 

9 minutes ago, Sablanck said:

We dont have a theme and each patrol is given an order of events so that it evenly spreads everyone out.  There is no time limit nor do you have to participate.  I need to go back and copy that YPT information down so I can put it in the leaders guide.  

As a youth I enjoyed camporee be cause I got a patch.

Yours sound better run that what I have experienced.  Ours often have the vibe similar to what others commented - it is expected that every scout will participate in every activity, which just makes it no fun.  if its an activity that some of the kids want to do , they get a lesser experience having to concern themselves with the kids who don't want to do it, etc.  Then again, I think the same people planning these events today are the same ones who were around planning them when I was a kid, which is a problem in and of itself  I get lots of "invitations" at RT that they "need help".  Attended a few meetings for a few events, the same 3 people talked over everyone and did what they wanted anyway, so let it go. 

Even as a youth, and even more now as an adult, I disliked Camporee's being so themed and scheduled that the weekend felt like a day of school.  Go here for 50 minutes, then walk over her for 50 minutes, etc.  I also disliked that adults did all the planning.  Get scouts from around the district/council to come together and plan it.  That might be difficult to do twice a year, so just have one.  And build in plenty of time for the units to be able to "free-form".  Even on a troop campout, you'll have some scouts more jazzed about doing pioneering projects than others, or another group may want to go fishing and others not.  To me, the ideal behind a Camporee is for scouts to mingle with other scouts, make new friends, and see that they are part of a larger body, not be simply moving in a herd with their own unit members.  Similar philosophy on a smaller scale than summer camp really.

Having friends that participate in events with the 501st legion, these things are a lot of setup- and these are not usually events that you can setup, pack up, and then setup again the following day.  Many of these individuals bring in movie quality props and sets that take hours to assemble and ready for display.  

Unit leaders do not have the authority to deny a Scout a conference that is necessary for him to meet the requirements for his rank. If a unit leader conference is denied, a Scout—if he believes he has fulfilled all the remaining requirements—may still request a board of review.

The above is the stance of the BSA Guide to Advancement (section 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader Conference).  I can understand the pickle of this situation, as well as the desire of knowing does he truly regret it.  Unfortunately, even having a conversation with him about that can be constituted as his SM conference.  I would say have the discussion with his father, see what Dad is thinking.  Ultimately, the scout can request an Eagle BOR under disputed circumstance (see section 8.0.3.2 Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances), and a denied SM conference or the unit leader(s) not signing the application are grounds for requesting this.  It comes down to your own personal convictions here- I have seen leaders bend because "he's going to get it anyway", but you do have the right to let that be someone else's moral dilemma, not yours.

A 4 mile backpacking trip is really not overly difficult to carry out.  While it's always great to really get the kids into backcountry to experience that, you can do it using your favorite camping spot (ie. your council camp).  Help the kids identify a spot on the route getting to the camp that is two miles out, have them muster there and pack into camp, and then pack out when leaving.  Leave the troop trailer at home, have them carry all the cooking gear they need, etc. and fulfill the Cooking MB requirement at the same trip.

For me, much of the "formal" training that is intended for adults gets into the aims and methods, but the depth is different between "scoutmaster" track and "committee" track.  Both sides should really have understanding of the other IMO.  Then you have IOLS, which I feel is helpful for anyone, regardless of how much experience they have with Scouting.  However, the material for that course is so condensed to fit a weekend, and it is a lot to digest and can be difficult to really implement - what I mean by the hard to implement, is the schedule to at least cover all the material is generally so tight, that when a participant (or several) have questions or want to spend extra time on an area, it can be hard to give that additional time without sacrificing something else.  At the Boy Scout level, one exceptional challenge, aside from asking people to give up their time, is that there are a great number of folks out there that have what I feel is an air of "this is a youth group, let's not make it overly complicated" mentality.  Overcoming that is really the big challenge to me.  Another challenge is the mentality that it really isn't that different from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, which is so not true.  It should feel different to the youth, as much as the parent, for that transition- it's a "growing up" transition, and that has always been the perception that was intended.  I do feel it incumbent on the SM and Committee Chair (I would love to say COR as well, if you can get them to be involved) to spend time in a formal way to give an overview to each new adult leader.  Even if the person spent 4 years as a Cubmaster, or spent a few years as an ASM in another troop, I feel there should still be this formal sitdown.  I would say structure that training similar to the ILST that we should be using with all Scouts.  Take out the icebreakers and whatnot if you see fit, but truly show the commitment to "youth led" and what that should be meaning for the Scouts is a good start.  If you are the SM or CC, this could feel very repetitive if you are doing this a few times a year, but stay vigilant.  Adults too often go rougue, or don't adjust well if they aren't given the instructions off the bat on what is expected of them (and of everyone else).  In some units, adults may have to wear a few hats, but as much as you can help them to know what their lane is, and how to stay in it, that is better for organizational harmony too.    

The ILST guide from BSA can be found here:https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/ILST FINALS 2011 - Item Number 511-016.pdf

You can also google 'ILST presentation' and find a number of versions that various troops have put together, and adapt as needed.  There also are a number of troops that have put together 'parent handbooks', which can also be a good idea.  In most work environments, you have an employee handbook and a code of conduct you are expected to follow, so why not have these for your unit?

Not implying the Scout did anything wrong, just didn't know the particulars of the young man and his eligibility.  Kudos to him if he is driven, I take nothing away from him on that.

Correct, he can work on most requirements concurrently.  The Cyber Chip is grade specific in how it is structured, not age, so if he is still in 5th grade then the award for 5th grade applies.  I tend to think it should be more about age based, as youth crossover at all sorts of various times, and we should have the material presented as to what is more relevant to the program group they are in.  As Boy Scouts/Scouts BSA should have even more youth run/lead activities, and thus communications, than say Webelos, material in the grade 6-8 is more applicable.  In terms of your son, it may be worthwhile for you and he to talk, and talk to his SM, that the grade 6-8 may be of value to him to earn now.  

Something seems off.  Children can be Scouts if they have completed the fifth grade and are at least 10 years old, OR have earned the Arrow of Light Award and are at least 10 years old, OR are age 11 but have not reached age 18.  Assuming the youth meets the above to be eligible at the Boy Scout level, with the fitness requirements, it would be a month between Scout and Tenderfoot, another month between Tenderfoot and Second Class, and another month between Second class and First Class.  Putting aside all the other requirements, especially the # of troop activities, that's a pretty accelerated timeline going on.  Assuming all of this is on the up and up, the requirement for Star is the same as Scout- earn the Cyber Chip appropriate for his grade.  So if he just got Scout in the past 3 months as a 5th grader, and would earn Star before finishing 5th grade, the requirement feels to be met.

29 minutes ago, SR540Beaver said:

So you're going to use the, "if a patrol wants to go play laser tag as a bunch of friends in street clothes, then it isn't Scouts going against the G2SS" defense even when the patrol planned it at a meeting?  OA ceremonialists need to do the honorable thing and follow the national rules rather than go rogue.

I have to agree with @SR540Beaver here.  my son has done these ceremonies for the past two years, and is disappointed in the change.  He's also disappointed in the poor scripts that have been provided as well.  However, he respects that they have been told what they have been told, and his choice is either comply or just don't participate in them at all.  His lodge seems intent on offering the new format, but I doubt he'll volunteer for them.