HashTagScouts

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I live East of the Mississippi.

In my state, I know of no "local tribes" which have a presence here any longer. I've lived here for more than 60 years. The only tribes claiming their origin in my state are far away. They have no presence here. Occasionally, a representative of a tribe will appear to speak to some issue.  Maybe once a decade.

And even at that, I have little sense or knowledge of their removal from my state, the depth of their connection to my state.

How does one even determine which tribes occupied their area, and their current representatives?

And, "honor."

So, if an OA lodge's ceremony script is respectful of not only Native Americans, but people generally, is that OK?

The Lenni Lenape script of my local OA Lodge is inspiring to me, a non-Native American.

 

None of the script is taken from any actual Lenape lore, it is all entirely made up. While I don't have issue with the scripts themselves, I do think dropping the association to the Lenni Lenape specifically is appropriate.

20 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Wow, with friends like this, who needs enemies. I’ve been active in scouting one way or another for almost 60:. In all those years, I have never seen AO show disrespect to the American Indian/idigenous/Native American culture. In fact OAs actions are typically respectful with the intention of showing honor. Now if the culture has changed how it looks at such things, fine, we change to continue showing respect. But done disparage the OA for living the scout law in their efforts.
 

On the other hand, I’m not sure OA can get back to the honor and respect that the organization once had because our culture doesn’t like individualism that sets piers apart. OA is/was an honor program that recognized scouts who set themselves apart as outdoorsmen and servants. They used to be the go to experts of camping skills. And, they usually were humble in their service to others. The organization used to require a scout prove discipline and maturity of camping and serving. Now many troops want all their scout to get elected in to the organization no matter their experience or maturity. Seems there is no real desire for a true honor program in the BSA.

Barry

To me, if you simply concede ground then you are letting the Order become the very thing you don't want. My son certainly had some opinions, and still does, on some of the youth that were in the Lodge with him. He's rolled his eyes a few times on who was elected as officers or for Vigil. But, he considered it to be motivation to do better himself. Part of the outside motivation for him was his former SM who very much was a "poo poo on the OA and everything else to do with Council" individual who also never was willing to take any constructive feedback from my son as SPL or any other previous SPL about their troop. The SM thought he had it all figured out, and the problem was never with him but everyone else. I don't disagree with your POV on a problem we face, just that the SM on the other side that is just bumping their youth through likely feels they are doing everything right, it's everyone else that is the problem. If we can't ever sit at a table and discuss things, or just aren't willing to even show up at the table, then we reap what we sow. 

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The first ones were in black robes.

Here's a pic from the birth of my home lodge:

 

You could easily ditch the headdresses.  And you do not need a fictional story of Native Americans to promulgate ideas about Brotherhood, Cheerfulness, and Service.

You could easily find stories to demonstrate these during the Colonial period, or during the American Revolution, or the westward expansion, etc.  It should not be offensive to find and tell a story from some native tribes to demonstrate these principles, either.  They need not be from your area particularly, since you are ditching the wearing of clothing to mimic.

Or, if a lodge wanted to incorporate stories from their local first peoples, there's plenty... 574 recognized tribes in the US.

https://www.usa.gov/tribes

P.S.  Gotta love the ties!!

P.P.S.  Also see https://oa-bsa.org/history/first-ceremony

The current options for attire aside from regalia is either field uniform or to wear all black, and the all black is what our youth have chosen if regalia is taken away. We did one ceremony this year with the ceremonialists in all black.

IMO the current Ordeal and Brotherhood ceremony texts don't need significant change- I think if you just dropped trying to associate the text to the Lenni Lenape, you're just representing a generic legend and legends are by nature not factual historical recitations. 

The Order itself can endure in a manner that Goodman and Edson envisioned. It's not very different to me from changing from the military type uniform of yesteryear to the uniform of today. We adapted, we survived. It's still the broader issue of whether the BSA itself can do the same. 

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

I've never been too involved with the OA, though an Ordeal member. My Troop was small, there were few of us in the OA, and fewer yet were interested in attending OA activities.  Somehow, time just did not allow. My huge involvement in Scouting otherwise just cast OA to the shadows.  That being said, I do understand that the OA is a huge factor spurring the involvement in Scouting for many who pass from youth to adults.

So that I can understand you better, with respect to your post, from whom were you expecting announcements regarding regalia?

The 24 month window, is that more or less than previously, and does extending or shortening it have some effect on the OA, and what effect?

The Ordeal Overnight-what are the arguments for and against eliminating it?  (I did the overnight, and thought it was great.  I bought into the whole Ordeal Weekend and live it to this day.)

Thanks.

The National Planning Meeting took place in December, where the new National Chief & Vice Chief, as well as the two Region Chiefs, were elected. The overall business of the Order is discussed at the NPM, and any changes that impact the coming year are announced. They held a FB Live "Fireside Chat" on the final night to give highlights. It's been anticipated that the end of regalia is not a question of if, but when, so many were waiting for this NPM. Today, they sent an email out with summary::

https://oa-bsa.org/article/order-arrow-national-updates-2023?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NPM Recap January OA Today&utm_content=NPM Recap January OA Today+CID_b080ae652133460be131aaf98e6eb2c7&utm_source=OA eNews Campaigns&utm_term=SEE ARTICLE

Previous was 12 months. If you didn't complete in the 12 months, you had to be elected all over again. I understood the reason for the temporary 24 months- 18 is just odd. If you didn't complete in 18 months, you basically are just "on the shelf" for 6 months now, waiting for your next unit election. To me, if we were going beyond 12 months, then should have just said 24 months.

The arguments for the overnight are it is the entire purpose of the Ordeal: a night away to reflect on what challenges you are asked to place upon yourself, and whether you are worthy for the honor. The arguments against is that a night under the stars without all your stuff is not fun for some, so it shouldn't be required. The conversations that have been occurring are more than just the overnight, it's about making the whole Ordeal weekend optional- essentially, get elected, and the Lodge hands you a sash and a handbook and you are a member, but come to Ordeal if you want to.  

To being the Scout Law into it - obedient. If the organization moves to strike regalia, going rogue is not exactly keeping to that point of the SL. At the end of the day, the AIA issue is one where we have to see it from the perspective of Native Americans, and Native Americans only. If we put a bunch of teens in clerical collars and had them start reciting a Mass, we'd have quite a few Catholics who would be up in arms. The breadth of what the OA was attempting with the "localized regalia" was a step in the right direction. Seeing just the comments in this thread make me recognize how necessary that was. Warbonnets worn by tribes from the Plains were spiritual items, not actual attire worn daily, and they don't represent well Native American from any other part of North America. Dancing,  drumming, face painting were also spiritual activities, not everyday things. What we have is ceremonies that are relaying a narrative that involves named individuals being portrayed by other named individuals- all of whom are fictitious. So, to any that feel it is appropriation, they are not wrong. I never felt that the ceremonies performed for Cub Scouts were appropriate nor necessary. Most of those involved a narrative about Akela (which was incorrect, in that the Akela from the Cub program is taken from The Jungle Book, not anything Native American), placed into a story using Native American theme performed by kids in Native American attire, delivered to even younger kids that mostly had no idea what the OA even is.

I have Native American DNA- not nearly enough I'd ever identify myself on any census as Native American. But I know many individuals who can and do. Are they terribly turned off by Native American iconography in the BSA? Not entirely, but nearly all would prefer it was done in a better way, that leaves Scouts and parents exposed to greater knowledge of what it is. For example, using actual Native American names for a camp might be OK, but using made-up names that sound Native American, not so much. Using the actual name of a Native American individual, such as Tecumseh or Pontiac, in a narrative that is factual to that individual would be OK. Making up a name that sounds Native American, not so much- unless it was fully explained to the audience of that narrative that what is being displayed is fictional. and if you did that, it pretty much says that the narrative is not quite so significant. I will say that for myself and some of my friends who are members of Native American tribal nations , we found a lot of the commentary when the Cleveland Indians changed their name to be just awful. The use of the name Indians, many NAs can deal with- it was using an image of a big-nosed red-faced "Indian" and calling it Chief Wahoo that was the offensive part. Similar to the Atlanta Braves- the name isn't quite the issue, nor the arrowhead, it's the tomahawk chop. If you want to call a sports team Warriors, Chief, etc. are those wrong? Not necessarily, but what imagery you associate to them could be.  

For those that are Vigil in this thread, think back to the Vigil ceremony. It is not laden with the same Native American thematics. It's much more of what I would describe as a spiritual psalm. Can we recreate that to use for Ordeal and Brotherhood? Absolutely. And I see that as the direction we will eventually go. The arrow itself isn't necessary to go. Lodge names, for the most part, will probably go unchanged. Titles such as Chief may not be necessary to go. But the imagery will change. Many of the youth I work with now as an adviser don't see the Native American imagery as captivating or necessary. And if that is where the majority of the youth are at, then it isn't quite so significant to me we keep things because it would upset us older folks. In regards the comment that the OA isn't quite as "honorable as it used to be", that's a bigger problem for the BSA in my view, not so much the OA. My belief is if you enacted advancement standards appropriately and used Commissioners correctly to make sure they are followed to the letter, you'd see membership drop at least 25% immediately, and that is the thing that no one higher up in the BSA is going to find acceptable. Until we are willing to accept those outcomes, the Oa is just left to have to adapt to what the BSA itself is.

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

I have recently learned that the mystical national committee, whoever they are, voted on something concerning AIA but are keeping it a secret.  A SECRET,  if they have the brass to think they can dictate what every lodge in the nation can do then they should at least publicize it and be willing to deal with the push back and fall out.  If they try to forbid the use of regalia and verbiage they may be in for a great big stinking and expensive 1st Amendment law suit.  That may get their attention.  After reading many of the previous posts I would like to remind the group that each lodge is SUPPOSED TO BE administered by youth members with the guidance of an advisor.  There are a lot of good excuses to avoid OA involvement and it does take some effort to support the lodge.  I'm pretty sure that the local lodge Advisor would welcome any help to make the lodge a success.  Rather then extinguishing the fire, the Supreme Chief should change the Lodge Advisor, and I'm sure that if someone would volunteer for that job, it would be accepted!

 

 

It's not the government so 1st A has no bearing at all. National can do whatever it wants with the OA, they own it (literally), just as they can do whatever they want with any other part of the BSA. The "should they" is always what will be up for debate.

Right now, the only change that is certain is the length of time for an individual to complete their Ordeal from their election date is now 18 months. it was a "temporary change" since 2020 that it was extended from the normal 12 months to 24 months. Made sense while camps were shuttered, but not so sure why it was deemed as necessary now to go longer than 12 months. 

The Native American iconography (seems to be the new way National is referring to it, which probably does mean it isn't just regalia but also the language/names such as those used in ceremony scripts, and probably position titles- if "clan" wasn't acceptable anymore, I'd imagine "chief" isn't too far off from getting ditched) is "still under discussion on how best to implement". My guess is that they wanted to announce now, but cost assessment needs to be done- as I understand it, the shift away from the "iconography" is going to impact the whole BSA, not just the OA, so camp names/campsite names are being discussed as part of the deal. Not that I love that idea, but if you're going to tell the OA they can't do something, it is hypocritical if you don't change your whole operation.

On 12/24/2022 at 8:27 PM, Oldscout448 said:

not unlike loosing a good friend after a long illness.  There is sadness, a feeling of loss but also a sense of relief.

Sad day for sure. Expected announcements tonight that regalia of any kind will no longer be permissible. Also that the 24 month window to complete Ordeal from election date will be permanent. A lot of us are questioning exactly what it is we are trying to keep alive at this point. I'm interested to see if they make any comment on the proposed idea of eliminating the Ordeal overnight - that's pretty much the deal breaker for me.

13 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

GSUSA sensibilities could have been handled better during the roll-out.  For example, better guidance on how to refer to our all-girl program during promotions would have helped.  Further, socially conservative persons acquired an inaccurate structural understanding of how Scouts BSA operates.  I still read conservative writers and converse with uninvolved conservative adults who vigorously claim we are a fully co-ed program.  

This is not helped at all by the "linked unit" option. As others have stated, there are far too many (and really, only 1 is more than enough) units that on paper claim to be separate units, but just have the girls as  a patrol within the single troop. Our council has 28 girl troops, and as of mid-November, about 1/3 were slated to not be able to re-charter because they had less than the five active youth.. Of those girl troops that I have some level of interaction beyond just knowing what town they are from- most of my interaction is from within those also involved in Venturing or OA, either from the youth, or adult leaders/parents- 3 are run entirely just a patrol, and all 3 hold unit elections with the girls right there with the boys for SPL election (that is, 1 SPL for the "2" units, 1 QM for the "2" units, etc.). For some of those who you interact with that have a negative view very well could look at your unit and think you are the one doing something against what the BSA envisions, and that is exceptionally awful. The BSA went from finding a path to inclusivity, IMO, to just opening a floodgate to make anything/everything work. And, I fully believe that they overestimated just how much membership they would gain. I read your posts, and do believe that your unit has been able to grow in a natural fashion, and that  your community is embracing the option. In my neck of the woods, it has been a slog. I know of our 28 girl troops, only 3 have membership over 15 scouts. Our AoL numbers are not fantastic either, and it looks like only a handful of packs will have more than 3 girls advance through AoL this year. Those are not good trends, especially with the "newness" factor waning. I envision from this point forward, attracting age 11+ girls with no prior Scouting experience into troops will be as difficult as it is to attract age 11+ boys, and the reliance on Cubs will be as real for girl troops as boy troops. That concerns me greatly that the trend of those 3 troops I mentioned earlier is going to be far more prevalent, and the fully co-ed option is going to have to happen (I suspect that my Council is not greatly different than others, in that Council rarely ever will step in when they fully know a unit is not operating by BSA guidelines and policy, other than for YP). Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of us that were in the "is this change necessary/it's happening, give them a chance" camp are not exactly impressed with where we are currently at overall, and it isn't the fault of those (girl) Scouts.

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

If I were in charge, I would have used the CIS idea as the catalyst to merge all 3 (now 4) citizenship mBs into one grand Citizenship mB. This is probably not a popular opinion, so be glad I am not in charge. 😜

 

Keep in mind, Family Life used to be Citizenship in the Home, so really you can just roll that in as well  

The BSA HA have age requirements for most of their adventures, so you do want to research that. Philmont, for example, your 11-12 year old scouts are not going on the treks with your 16 year old scouts, so be prepared for that. If the troop has never done an excursion, my first advice to you is start planning now for 2024, not 2023. You need to know you have solid commitment before you start trying to get into a Philmont lottery. Also, watch the "crew size" on the HA bases- those do generally also have to include two adults- so, if you thought about Out Island Adventure at Seabase, for example, crew size is 6-8 and that includes your two adults. Our troop is similar size, and they did their first official BSA HA trip in 2019 to Seabase. They will be doing another in 2023. If we were a bigger troop and had more older scouts to put us into a rhythm to go every other year, we'd support that, but at our size, it would basically kill the traditional summer camp experience. Our choice, we'd rather that the traditional summer camp experience take precedence, so the HA trips are August dates, summer camp is July. You may want to take a smaller step and just plan a 5-7 day trip of your own for just your older scouts. Depending on locale, try and see if a 2-3 day canoe or whitewater adventure, with a 2-3 day backpacking trip to a national forest is a possibility. If it creates an appetite, and gets the younger kids juices flowing after hearing the older kids talk about their experience, then you can start planning one of the HA base trips. There are also many camps around the US that allow for you to put younger scouts into a traditional summer camp program, while the older youth go into an adventure program that can involve a number of possibilities- multi-day backpacking/canoe/whitewater trips. It might work out for the longer term if you begin by building a "high adventure culture", versus just the one-every-five-years trip to a HA base.         

58 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m not so sure. The way I understood it, at least in my council, the people still had to “reup” or not. It was only the $75 (now $100) charter that was extended. So, they dropped or not already. At least in my council. 

Same here. Charters were extended, but the annual participant registration fee was not given extension.

On 10/19/2022 at 1:52 AM, jscouter1 said:

Hello forum! It’s been a while since I have posted on here but a lot has happened since then and I am again faced with a dilemma that I can not figure out myself. As a preface for this you should know my troop does things a little differently and (among other things) runs their own high adventure programs, this means we will never use a BSA high adventure like Philmont or Northern Tier. It has come to my realization that I would like to visit Philmont in the short amount of time I have left as a scout ( 4-6 years depending on how you look at it). Now the reason I am posting on here is that when November rolls around enrollment for NAYLE at Philmont starts, while NAYLE sounds amazing a Rayado trek does as well. Any input helps!

If you are a member of the OA, check out the opportunities available to only OA members at each of the HA bases. Special pricing, and special programs available only to youth OA members.

I have a friend who ran into as issue a few years ago on a boat trailer that someone gave to him that had been sitting in their yard for years. He had to pay for a title search, which takes time, and then once that was completed the state issued a new VIN and title with that VIN. Different states have different rules, so a trip to your RMV might be the best way to get all the answers you need and save you a whole lot of headache. An hour of your time and an extra $75 spent that saves you hours of dead-ends might be the better value for you.     

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Scouting ought to be a sampling menu at kindergarten and maybe even first grade levels. It ought to be a spring or summer program where you attend a couple of den or pack activities and culminates in being able to attend a pack or district event like a special overnight camp out or fishing derby or something fun. Most other youth activities at that age are very basic, very low key, and cost practically nothing. They run for a short session and generally culminate in some big hoorah. BSA says it relied on research when formulating the Lions program but that is always suspect. It doesn't seem to be well thought out but more a knee jerk way of trying to bring in more membership money. 

When New England Base Camp began in earnest, bullet points would get whispered about how much interest there was from young boys and girls and their parents about "what Scouting had to offer", and how much the BSA should be learning from the feedback. I'm sure those kids, both boys and girls, did and do like a half day of lighting fires, throwing tomahawks, shooting BB guns, having chicken nuggets/tater tots cooked for them at the kitchen, moving from one program area to another with their parent when they are ready to move on, etc. Does any of that actually translate to whether they would have enjoyment when you put it into a larger program that involves full day or weekends at camp, pack meetings, weekly den meetings (and not necessarily on the afternoon/evening that is best/most convenient for the parent), having to memorize oaths, wearing uniforms, doing fundraisers, and generally not getting to move about as individuals but as groups? Not particularly. There are many elements within Scouting that can have appeal to a great number of youth, but when all packaged together, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, and trying to continually tinker with how we can make it so seems to bring in as many numbers equal to those it pushes out is my observation from the last decade+. Heck, we're at a place in time where there are actual conversations happening that could be implemented to no longer require an individual to go through Ordeal for membership in the Order of the Arrow, because it seems to exclude some who might not enjoy the activities that happen during the Ordeal.

Last I checked, Friendly/Courteous/Kind are still three points of the Scout Law. If you can't sit and have a civil conversation with someone you disagree or see eye-to-eye with, you really are not following the Scout Law. That's the point I would emphasize.

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

There's plenty of other research that says kids get burned out. There's also plenty of research that says kids at that age are sampling, not staying. Also, BSA has a long history of using, quote-unquote "Research", to justify marketing and financial goals. If someone on top of the food chain decided that recruiting another younger rank of cubs would increase membership and revenues, then I'm sure they were able to find the necessary research to support it. 

Based on the membership crashes of the past several years, that doesn't seem to be bearing up. During the pandemic, local nature centers, parks departments, etc., reported significant participation increases for elementary age nature programming. Many had waiting lists for programs. 

It's very easy for kids to move in and out of other activities as their interests change or their time limitations vary. There really is no reason why membership in scouting has to be so linked to a unit, council, or in some cases rank. It is truly an impediment to retention and recruitment. One of my nephews joined a troop late in high school simply because he wanted to go camping with some of his friends who he enjoyed other outdoor activities with.  Unfortunately, the troop leadership just did not know what to do with him and he only lasted a few camp outs. 

This is the reality- we became so focused on advancement as program, the organization became less about time spent in the outdoors. The skills learned were of practical nature to the environment we were in. As a youth in Scouts, I slept in a cabin maybe three times. I slept more times in a tent on top of snow than that. We didn't have "trail to First Class" at summer camp. The Troop only had two stoves, so cooking over the fire was the norm. We had a blast, and were dog tired by the end of our weekends. Checking off the boxes in the handbook was the last thing on our minds.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in New England, seems every council is now running weekends at  council camp that are open to the public, no Scouting membership required. And most of the attendees are not registered in Scouting nor have interest in joining. Cost seems less of the issue from the parent comments shared to me, it's the time commitment- they perceive that Scouting has to be full-time thing, or the kid will "fall behind". I recognize the dilemma for many leaders- if they didn't focus on advancement, they are going to deal with parents upset their kid is not advancing. I've been there. I know of far too many units that can't get enough leaders to spend the whole week at summer camp, so they have to do a rotation. 

Spirit of Adventure Council in MA did not offer summer camp at one of their camps this year. They give a long-term lease to a group of Scouting-affilited individuals to one of their camps, and that group ran a coed camp that wasn't about a Scouting advancement program. They didn't have a great deal of difficulty in getting attendees, and it cost a lot more than a week of Scout camp does. 

35 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@HashTagScouts  Even if the is not a new Scout Patrol, the older girl or boy will be learning skills with younger youth while their friends are doing more advanced activities.  To adults, the distinctions are small but for youth, they can be substantial.  I have seen this many times, but others may have seen such situations evolve differently.  

Sorry, but I would never agree you must use that structure. 

My son had zero desire to be in Cubs. He observed the Den of his school friends in Cubs, and saw it of no interest. First troop he joined, SM (who had never been in the program, he took what he learned from the BSA training and what his wife, who had been a Cub leader told him) wouldn't let my kid go to summer camp (assumed it wouldn't be enough time for my son to prepare between when school was over and my son could officially join the troop and when camp began). My son spent the summer reading the BS handbook, learned the Law and Oath, and having a father who had been a Scout he had learned fire-building and appropriate pocket-knife handling, etc. from our father-son outdoor experiences. When the summer was over, my son was was handled differently than the kids his same age who had earned AoL. SM (and his wife), couldn't reconcile that a kid could learn the actual relevant things that Cubs is intended to teach in a matter of a few months. 80% of the Cub program is repetitive from one year to the next. After only a few months, my son was ready to quit the troop, it had become boring, the troop/SM was intent on trying to teach him skills he already knew, rather than letting him go with his age-appropriate peers that were AoL. 

The whole intent of the Scouts BSA program is kids teaching kids. If your 12 year old First Class Scout can't teach another 12 year old the Tenderfoot requirements, you may want to re-evaluate what your 12 year First Class Scout learned getting to that rank.   

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If we could likewise make Scouts BSA friendlier for coming and going, it might help us to inculcate the values of the Scout Oath and Law into many more children and youth.  Scouts BSA is harder to make it friendly and it has a nearly singular access point at about age 11.  A girl or boy who join much after age 11 could find themselves in a patrol of 11 & 12 year olds that teens usually do not like.

In my opinion, it is critical for growth of the movement to make it easier for youth to join whenever they wish and then to find the program accepting of them at whatever their age.

If you assume all troops place all newly joined Scouts into a "New Scout Patrol", then you might be right. I have never been in a unit that would take a newly-joined 14 year old and put them into a NSP. Frankly, with the current YP tenting age requirements, you really can't. We'd always put them into the age appropriate patrol they joined, and it was up to the other kids in that patrol to "bring them up to speed" and teach them. If the kid wanted to advance, the PL and other patrol members helped to teach them skills.

I don't agree it is inherently difficult for a kid to join at a later age due to limitations of the program. Limitations of the troop, possibly. Scouts BSA is not supposed to be an Advancement-above-all-else program, as has been discussed many times on the forum- Advancement is a method, not an aim. Realistically a kid joining at 14 has plenty of time to advance to Eagle, if they desired to. I'd rather focus far more on the fun aspect, and always keep the focus on getting kids to First Class by the time they are done, as those are the skills that really are not learned at school or really have an easy outlet to learn through other organizations. Time-management and service-project participation can be learned at a later point in life, the Star-
Eagle track is ultimately all about giving youth an earlier exposure to it to try and help jump-start them over their peers for readiness as adults. If a troop is too fixated on regimented structure, then it is really not going to be an ultimately welcoming place- to a newbie, nor to a transfer.

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Bad wording on my part. Chapter 7 would end the corporation and IMHO, the Congressional Charter for a specific, non-existent entity would be...moot?

If new Scouting organizations rose, would the BSA Congressional Charter automatically transfer to any of them? IMHO no. Whatever the name, it/they would be a different corporations and I doubt any new Congressional Charters would be approved. The 1992 debate of ending Congressional Charters might resume in Congress.

Not a lawyer, just another $0.01.

Considering the cloud under which the dissolution would occur, I couldn't see it gaining massive support to give CC recognition to a new organization(s) immediately. I think you'd have to see the new organization(s) prove themselves over several years to get to a CC stage.

I personally don't think we'd see just one cohesive organization rise from the ashes. I think tribalism will direct there being multiple. Those who don't agree with there being a faith requirement could splinter, those who still don't agree with girls and boys being in the same organization could splinter, those who believe there should be mostly outdoor program/requirements versus those who don't potentially splinter, etc. The other scouting organizations out there today would likely receive marginal gains from BSA demise. I think they have not grown significantly to this point because the BSA name has been more recognizable, and Eagle Scout has certainly been more recognizable. Many not involved in Scouting have at least a basic positive reaction to hearing someone say they are an Eagle Scout. How many even know what the top award in TrailLife is called?   

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

There has got to be more to this story.

Barry

I don't have anything to add on the specific cases, but that was the prompt to change that NYLT courses are required to have a two SMs now, one male and one female.

52 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33066/33066_Official_Policy_WEB.pdf

Official policy even states wearing the uniform is not mandatory and to "promote the wearing of the correct complete uniform on all suitable occasions."

I think this is intentional and works.  At least in our troop we expect for meetings shirts, jeans, or scout pants/shorts.  For Court of Honor and Board of Review full uniform to the extent you own (even BoR rules state something about only having to wear the parts you own).  Etc.  Our troop has policies on what to wear when, the Scouts follow it, we have no issue.

There is no official uniform policy demanding full dress uniform every week at a scout meeting.  Much is left to the unit, I believe this is by design. 

My sons unit allowed any type of green pants/shorts, so if the parent bought a pair of "no-name" or designer name pair of dark green pants, those were perfectly fine. They did not require the actual BSA pants at $50. With Cubs, being navy blue as the color, I would never ask a parent to spend the money for the official shorts, I'd tell them to go to Walmart and buy the $15 navy blue cargo shorts.

41 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Had several meetings this week about what is going on in Scouting. . Apparently I am spreading rumors since I keep up with the bankruptcy , state what is being told in court (via this site and others), and ask questions that the PTB either do not want to answer, or do not know the answer because they are not informed.

I asked about council mergers since BSA plans to downsize the number. Answer is council mergers wont be happening if goals are met. I asked about why we are investing in a camp, when the merger possibility exists and the camp will get sold. Told again no mergers are going to happen if goals are met. Asked about when the changes to YPT will occur, and was told  I am spreading rumors.

Sad thing is I find out more here and on other sites, than I do from my council.

Sadly, I have great concerns on the future, because I don't for a second believe the institution of the BSA is truly going to learn anything from what we are currently going through and change itself. They had significant staff reductions, but the moment they have the chance, I believe they will begin increasing staff again- and not always for what the volunteers/units need, but for what National wants. My own council began hiring again late last year, but not to place individuals in the four open DE positions, but in "membership"- which mostly consists of individuals at the council level that now email and brow beat units on what they are doing to increase membership numbers. I won't at all be surprised if thy go back to allowing professional staff to fly first class, spend large sums on "capital improvements" at the HABs, etc. They live far too much in the "if goals are met" dystopia that somehow we are going to obtain pre-1980 membership levels again. How many more years can the organization stand to sit on that hill and wait for that ship to come in?    

7 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

I am confident that if one of our election teams was told "we do not allow anyone who does not have 10 days and nights of camping along with a summer camp to vote"; that unit would be informed that that is not how elections are  conducted.  (not to mention that those requirements to vote are more stringent than those to be elected).

I do sometimes wish that lodges or chapters would not encourage units to elect everyone who meets the minimum requirements, and that there was once again a max number of people who could be elected from the unit each year.

Correct. You can't exclude any active Scout from participating in the election. Official rules: "In Scouts BSA troops, Venturing crews, and Sea Scout ships, every registered active member of the unit under age 21 at the time of election is eligible to vote in an Order of the Arrow unit election; this includes assistant Scoutmasters who are 18, 19 or 20 years old." Our elections teams are instructed to use some judgement on suggesting that Scouts can not turn in a ballot if they desire- aimed for the first year youth, so long as they make up a small fraction of the eligible youth that are present so that it wouldn't be detrimental to the results. A youth has to receive votes from at least 50% of those who turn in ballots to be elected. 

Alas, I don't see the maximum # per unit coming back. What I would like to see is that we not just require First Class Rank, but also that the Scout has not just achieved a minimum # of nights under canvas, but has actually completed Camping Merit Badge. That, to me, would bring back some of the "master camper" element. In the age of "First Class, First Year" I see far too many 12 year old Scouts at Ordeals. A few are exceptional, but most are just not even really aware of what the OA is and are fish out of water. 

3 hours ago, curious_scouter said:

FOS is down a bit but nothing like the camping revenue tanking.  FOS being down is not surprising.  Who contributes to that?  The most passionate and invested people.  They are still here, so the revenue should be strong-ish still.  But... we all have limits.  When I was paying $48 a year for my two scouts, it was very easy to open up the checkbook when the FOS people came around.  Now that it's $300 a year... I mean... what do you expect?  You're getting what I can reasonable contribute from mandatory fees now.  Sorry... nothing left to give when FOS comes around and zero excitement to see them come around and ask families for more money when they've already increased the base cost of scouting to them by 5 orders of magnitude in the past 3 years without any objective improvement of a similar magnitude to the program or experience for the scouts.  It should embarrass them honestly.

I stopped giving anything to FOS years ago. If a Scout needs a new handbook, I'm happy to pick one up for them on my trip to the Scout Shop. Kid needs $10 to buy a leather working kit at camp, I'm cool with reaching into my wallet. Camp needs brake cleaner and lubricant at the rifle range? Check, I'll pick some up and bring it down. Sports needs new soccer balls that will actually hold air? Check, I can help. But, give $ direct to FOS? Nope. Its whole premise was to get contributions from those OUTSIDE of Scouting. 

21 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The council call out I went to had no regalia.  Apparently a local tribe objected when asked.  They still put on a good ceremony. I personally liked what an older scouter said before we headed to the OA call out.  He emphasized cheerful service and that it was an honor to be elected to the OA.  That OA represents the best of scouting and those chosen for the honor should continue their cheerful service.  

OA seems to be in serious trouble and I question it's long term viability.  Our council OA meetings are an hour away.  Our council camp doesn't have a Scouts BSA program and is over an hour away.  Building a service organization that does anything more than 1-2 events a year is tough as council camps are sold off and councils merge, expanding OA lodges across wide expanses of the state.

Most of my scouts preferred OA call outs to not have regalia.  They seemed open to if if a tribe was partnered with the lodge ... but several compared prior (regalia based) OA callouts to minstrel shows.

First ... I think OA needs to figure out the 1 lodge/council situation.  When we go to 80 councils (or there abouts) post bankruptcy ... 1 lodge/council doesn't work.  I almost think we should have a lodge per district.

Second ... Perhaps OA isn't just or primarily dedicated to service of council camps.  That worked when councils have several camps, many of which within a short drive.  Council camps are being sold off left/right ... OA should broaden their service.

Third ... If there is a tribe that works closely with the lodge, great.  Otherwise, figure out a non NA version of ceremonies.  Don't just copy the NA version without regalia.  Use it as an opportunity to use scouting history ... referencing great scouts of the past.  Dress in full Class A uniforms.  I could imagine some impressive ceremonies that are based on scouting history.

Finally ... Make OA more visible during camporees and other council/district activities.  It seems like I only hear of OA during election & callouts.

Hopefully OA adjusts.  They are a great organization, but have a lot of headwinds.  We will see...

How the Lodge functions operationally can vary, and a lot can depend on the "human capital" factor - though a lot can depend on being stuck in the "we've always done it this way" mode. With your first point, if the Lodge truly has embraced the Chapter usage, it is perfectly fine for Chapters to function fairly independent and recruit their own Chapter ceremonies team, conduct induction weekends themselves (or team up with another Chapter to conduct a joint weekend). Greater Tampa Council is just one example I am aware of that does this.

The OA Lodge is supposed to give "service" by "camp promotion". We've had some spirited debates on what exactly that means. There've been "Beaver days", and some disappointed that the attendance wasn't very big. I just don't think it is terribly realistic that parents are going to drive their kid an hour+ each way to for a four hour workday doing trail maintenance or setting up/taking down canvas. The majority of parents are not in the OA, so their commitment to service isn't the same as the youth. It's been slow getting the other adults in our Lodge to come around to understanding that.    

The directive we have been given is that there needs to be an OA "presence" at every Council event. I don't give our SE credit for being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I have to believe that is something that he got from above him as a directive. If your Lodge isn't at least working with your Council/District to assist in some way (and it really not need to be more than "any youth working staff for the Camporee is encouraged to wear their OA sash"), I'd have that conversation with your Lodge leadership. Our philosophy is the sash should be bright white when it is given to the individual, but it shouldn't remain that way- the dirtier and grungier the sash is, the more we know that individual has taken the commitment to service to heart.