HashTagScouts

Said it on other threads- let BSA make rank/advancement patches, but have uniform items be available from a third party source, similar to Sea Scouts. Get out of the overhead inventory cost, etc.  Not sure you all got the same email I did this morning, but BSA has released the new uniform shirt into distribution, while still having the old one available.  Yup, in the middle of a bankruptcy, they spent likely several million dollars fulfilling purchase orders on these things to sit in the warehouse... 

Rarity you'd have one in a true wilderness setting, especially a setting where you wouldn't have adults with you to use it.  That said, I would not actually let the scout set it off to show they know how to use it.  They could easily show how they would determine the direction to set it off, what overhead obstacles to avoid, etc. with a flare, without having them truly set it off in a mock wilderness setting during the summer when wildfire risk is high.  Just not a good idea.  Having them set it off in a wide open parking lot, doesn't really get to the learning objective of the MB requirement IMO. 

12 minutes ago, MattR said:

Looks like you're right. Once upon a time I thought it was.

Additionally, a leadership project shall not be used in lieu of the listed PoRs for Eagle (it is only valid for Star and Life).

I would rather it was incorporated in a fashion such as Cyber Chip, not as a MB.  Primarily, I say that because if the message intended to be delivered is that on point, how does it make sense that a now 11 year old waits to work on that MB 2 days before their 18th birthday so they can get their Eagle application signed? 

I'll wait until I see the content of what is going to be included to pass judgement if it is duplicative or comprehensive, etc.  I would not be against anything that helps to crystallize any point of the Scout Law into our youth, especially Friendly, Kind, and Reverent.  There's enough going on in the world right now that they are experiencing that it seems pretty relevant to me.  If our society were more idealized as Scouting is (or as some may argue, should be), perhaps it would not be so.

6 minutes ago, Troop75Eagle said:

Couple of other quotes can go with that..

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men's character, give him power -A. Lincoln

 

 

Not that your overall point isn't valid, but to be clear this quote has often been attributed to Abraham Lincoln but it was never actually said by him.  Robert Ingersoll said it about Lincoln.

6 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

If you wernt there dont make assumptions and I  would be cautious these days when stating "they can't do that" because "they" can do whatever they want.

Take a freaking chill.  I guess the 6 different versions of the handbook that span a few decades I have that don't mention this must all be wrong then? It was your SM that had the requirement, as SM has the final approval of who goes on the ballot.  Accept that and move on.  

I see no reason to mandate what should already be an SM function- heard directly by a member of the National Board who is a former Associate Lodge Adviser from my Lodge that this question has been posed to them before, and was raised last year again when the discussion to allow Venturers and Sea Scouts in (as those programs start at age 14).  You want her SSN too,  just so you can confirm she is a real person, as you weren't there?  

2 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

It did exist, and I  dont think the OA was ever an agency.  No book, paper, note, picture, form, or video ever called the OA an agency so it was never an agency and did not exist. 

Your unit placed that.  It was never a National requirement.  Councils/Lodges cannot place anything on what National does, so it was your SM that used that rule as to who he would give SM approval to for the ballot.  The troop you were in as kid is certainly welcome to resurrect their history and do that if they want, but it will never get imposed as a policy.

40 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I have never head of an age limit from National. I just checked our records and we have several that were 13 when they went through Ordeal from 1954 to 1981. One was actually 12 (Ordeal 1966). They are from at  least 6 different councils.

The only limitation on the number of Scouts elected, that I am aware of,  was the percentage rule which was done away with in the late 1990s. And it was not a strict number that could be elected, rather a restriction that a Scout could vote for no more than HALF of the Scouts on the ballot.

Correct.  I have never seen any older version of the handbook that states there was an age requirement.  It was always on merit of rank and camping nights that one could become eligible and voted in by the troop youth.  Women were allowed to become members- as adults anyway- beginning in 1988.

If we are concerned about the quality of the youth that are getting elected, and I too share those concerns in my role with my Lodge, we ned to look at the programs that are putting these youth forward.  A 12 year old Star Scout that can't tie a bowline is a product of the unit they belong to.  "Do Your Best" is a Cub motto, and that motto ends when they are no longer in the Cub program, in case anyone didn't get that memo.  You don't go after that Scout, you go after those who signed him off to reach that level.

2 minutes ago, BAJ said:

 I have a somewhat less critical reading of many of the posts there than you had (I read less that posters feel it is unjust that some will miss out on the opportunity to earn Eagle and more that there is a lot of frustration and disappointment on the part of leaders — including leaders of female troops — with new scouts where COVID has disrupted their scouting journey very soon after they started to build up engagement and momentum).  That said, if you missed it, I’d recommend the question about Dog Care merit badge asking whether the badge could be earned with a cat.

To even use the word unjust is inappropriate- unless they are in only for the Eagle.  I also see flawed logic in the postings regarding camping nights.  When someone starts a post saying their unit is enthusiastic, and camps monthly, you have to do the math.  Assume they started right out the gate 2/1/19.  Say monthly camping March, April, May, summer camp in June or July, and a weekend trip the other month, then weekend trip in September, October, possibly November.  In any event, that means likely 5 weekend trips minimum, plus summer camp = 16 camping nights? Getting 4 more by the end of 2020 is totally out of the question? And, with the extension option already there, I hardly see anything that is not just.  The choice of words, for me, highlights the uber-Eagle problem.  We all are missing on momentum right now, but take it as part of the journey. 

We did one virtual campout- SM gave in because two kids on the PLC asked as they needed to complete First Class cooking requirements.  Both also needed a couple other requirements (the 3 R's, fitness requirements).  Only two other kids in the troop wanted to participate, but we relented and let them do it.  Halfway through Saturday they ghosted, but those two did film with a cellphone as they were cooking, so SM gave the OK.  One of the others, we have no idea what they did.  The last one, the parent checked off like 5 requirements in SB looking for SM to sign-off, including the compass and GPS.  SM came to me and asked what I thought- I said no way to the last kid.  3 weeks later, those same two original asked about having another virtual campout- I stepped in and asked if they had bothered to reach out to an older Scout to get signed off on the 3 R's? Nope.  Have they even started the 30 day fitness? Nope.  Result- no more virtual campouts for us.    

I accessed the forums on Scoutbook this morning, looking for any tip on editing a feature.  First time in probably two years since I had accessed those forums, and the first before they made the forum more than just about SB itself... OH. MY. LORD. The threads going on and on about how unfair it is that camping in the backyard doesn't count for Camping MB.  How unjust it is that some of these kids will miss out on "getting Eagle" (one of the absolute worst phrases that makes me want to slap someone when I hear it- Eagle is not supposed to be 'got', it is supposed to be earned).  

12 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Change in attitude...   My mom grew up in Boston in the 1920's and 30's . Bus and interurban trains were her thing.  When it came to visiting the city,  we often drove to the local bus/streetcar terminal(20 miles away) and rode the car into the city to the museums (Washington DC.).  No more streetcars, but DC had to fight to gain the Metro it so appreciates now.

True story:   One of my assignments before I retired was to close up the local bus service. Last bus came into the depot around 1:15am.   One friday night, about 11pm, I answered the phone. Man's voice asks if I could answer some questions about using Metro. I said I'd be glad to, what was his question?  He said his son was going from Colesville (a MD  suburb) into George Washington University to attend a special "honors" class.  I asked him, are you going with him? He answered  "of course not !" "How old is your son?  14.  Then shouldn't I be talking to him?   .

>>>Silence......   He said, just a minute....   A younger voice came on. "hello?"   "Hello. You going down to GW tomorrow?"   Yeah.   Do you know how to ride the Metro?   No.  How did you expect to get there?     . . . . .   We had a good conversation, and I HOPE the kid got to his class and home successfully.   It is multi block walk from the closest Metro station to GW's campus , which itself covers several city blocks.......

When I was "walking the platform"  in the Metro stations, I often saw sub teens , loaded with backpack, on their way to school mornings.....

You gave me a good laugh.  Being from MA, though living here in the 'burbs, I'm experienced enough with our mass transit system.  Within the city of Boston, it is very much the norm that elementary aged kids use mass transit- subways or buses- to get to their school.  Many kids from the burbs attend private middle schools/high schools in the city, and they take mass transit to get to school.  Parents drive them to the nearest commuter rail station, and off they go.  To think we need a "program", such as BSA to teach navigating mass transit is ludicrous.   

36 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

The neat thing about the Outdoor program is that (if run correctly) Scouts learn invaluable skills and do not realize they are even in a learning situation.  In their mind they are out having fun, spending time with their friends, enjoying the day away from their parents 😀.  THAT is the real secret that many do not get.  If one tries to turn Scouts / BSA / Whatever the new name may be into just more classes, more instruction and NOT something unique, it will continue to fade.

The strength, the differentiation in the crowded youth activity market IS the outdoor program and the activities related to this.  Schools / museums / colleges do STEM better than BSA ever could.  Similar groups can offer a much deeper effort for Arts type activities.  The mass amount of sports programs can offer fitness and team stuff.

We are (or should be) an Outdoor based program and by involvement the participant will gain experience in self reliance, life skills, leadership, conflict resolution, citizenship (camp in a state park and you sort of have to learn what collaborative government can provide to citizens), practical first aid, etc etc.  This is what we need to emphasize.  Not to be all things to all people and literally do none of them very well.

I don't at all disagree with you that many other programs are out there that do STEM better than BSA.  What BSA offers in this regard that is attractive to some parents: BSA does it cheaper.  Cheaper doesn't translate to equal quality for sure.  If BSA is going to keep doing STEM, invest to make it better/comparable to those other things out there, and charge accordingly.  I've seen robotics workshops in my area that are weekend events (9-5 each day, with lunch only provided at an additional cost) for youth age 15-18 that costs like $350.  These workshops have students from MIT, employees of iRobot, etc. involved, so seems pretty quality and for a kid into robotics probably a worthwhile experience.  But if I as a parent can pay just a smidge more and send my kid to summer camp so he can work on robotics MB, though not at all a comparable experience, but meals are included, etc. - WOW! What a value!

Reality is we don't have the $ to invest in STEM, and we are not going to get there after the next year is over, so scuttle it.  Providing a mediocre experience in that is only going to turn those kids off in short order anyway, and then they will just sour on the BSA altogether. 

I would say an option that we, the unit, make the decision on who we feel should be the adult leaders.  I don't need paid pros making that decision.  In any business you like to have succession plans, so I as current CC would be looking to groom my replacement.  I would make the call on who that is, who I feel is the best fit.  Same for the SM and his/her replacement.  Let the paid pros be concerned about the big picture, like YPT issues.  As @dkurtenbach says, we should ahve the commissioner corp be interested in who I am designating as my replacement so that they can be there to support them once the transition occurs, that my unit is following GTSS and GTA, etc.  Don't expect my church/VFW/PTO/etc. trying to take that on.

But, yes, leave that option on the table that the current CO model can still be there for those that want that.  Some orgs would offer meeting space even if they are not the CO.  Our Legion post was not the CO for the first 47 years of the troop, but did offer meeting space and storage space.  When the church that was the CO decided they didn't want to continue- even though they hadn't actually put any $$$ into the unit, or given meeting space for years- it was a natural fit to ask the post to become the CO.  But, they didn't want any more oversight than what they had previously had.  

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

 Made me think that if Troops have scouts who don't like camping, it could be the type of camping they offer.

I would agree with this statement for sure.  My son does like camping, but at age 17 he likes camping that involves allowing him to be in fairly in control of what he does while camping.  He appreciates his first few years in his former troop that it helped him get to where he is advancement-wise and with some of the skills he has, but that troop is about advancement 90% of the time on their camping trips.  Most of it is car camping only, the SM dictates that he wants a schedule from the SPL on what time breakfast is, what advancement activities are being offered from 8:30-noon, what is being done in the afternoon, what time dinner is, who's running the campfire program on Saturday night, etc. Kids are never allowed to leave the campsite unless the whole troop is doing so.  At dusk, no one leaves the site unless they are going to the latrine.  If you are an older scout, say 14+, you are expected to be teaching advancement.  There is no real time given for kids to make an adventure of their own, whether it be fishing with a few of their buddies, or taking a hike to scenic spot, or playing ultimate frisbee, etc.  No going on a star gazing walk at night.  So, it becomes a rather one-flavor boring affair after a few of those outings.  I would say that in my time with the troop, about 30 kids received Camping MB. In reality, less than 8 of them actually did the type of camping required by requirement #9b and only because they had been in the troop for 4-5 years and the once a year "special camping trip" overlapped with some of those options.  

The troop he is with now encourages advancement, and the older kids helping with it, but otherwise it is up to what the PLC wanted for the afternoon.  as long as the kids are doing what they want safely, and understand that that if we observe something being done that should not be they will lose the privilege, they go off and do what they want.  If the theme of the weekend is a backpacking trip, then obviously it is going to involve backpacking, and it is up to the kid to decide to attend or not.  We strive to have at least one camping trip a year cover one of those options from requirement 9b, so we know that every kid will have options to complete those things.  We strive to have balance, so some not-so-comfortable experiences will be had, some car camping experiences will be had, and some HA will be had.

It is great when you have a CO that is interested and engages in some manner to their unit(s).  There is a lot that the COR is theoretically supposed to be involved in- they are supposed to be actively participating in the district/council level as well.  They are supposed to be the most informed of the unit key 3, in theory.  And i don't doubt that there are a good number who are.  I just haven't seen that in practice around my area.   I think as others have said, for a new unit there may be engagement, but ongoing engagement is probably where more can/should be done.  For American Legion units, posts hold elections annually and the post commander theoretically is the IH/COR by default, so if you have someone new in that position every year, the institutional knowledge getting passed on is iffy.  

This is the COR Guidebook if anyone was curious what their role is supposed to be: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/511-421(16)_WEB.pdf

1 minute ago, Cburkhardt said:

I agree.   That is the typical situation.  I readily admit that we have a great CO situation because we are new (a girl Troop) and carefully sought-out a great CO.  It's almost ridiculous how great they are -- the head church volunteer leader is the Troop Chair, the COR is the past head church leader and the pastor is our chaplain and has visited us on campouts (stayed a couple of nights at summer camp).  The whole church loves the our Scouts and even held a church wide fund-raising reception for us.

The question is whether you would prefer the situation you have that allows unit independence or a structure where a contract-designated supervisor is your district and council leadership.  Do you want them to be able to instruct you as to what you shall do?

As to the "sacred cow" status of COs, I never really thought this structure had that status.

I think if we went back to the 40's and 50's, we probably had a lot of COs that were heavily involved, and a great number of members of those COs were probably directly in leadership positions within the troops.  Over the span of the last 70 years, a lot of those former CO "groupings", like the YMCA, pulled away.  I would say over the past three decades, if not longer, it's been the scramble if you want to start a unit to find anyone with blood in their veins and willing to sign a document that becomes the CO.  I also think that the national/council leadership, and unfortunately many of the unit volunteers, erroneously think that our COs are willing partners ready to take on liability for what our unit does.  I think a good number of our COs would lose their minds if we ever actually tried to get them to pony $ for liability for the units they are chartering.  I don't favor a direct ownership (that's how I would phrase GSUSA's model) of units by Council. but give us as the units a choice- lay out a Charter Org model that clearly tells a CO what liability they are taking on by sponsoring a unit, and a model where the unit directly can fund itself.  I'd spend unit funds to have a blanket liability insurance policy with reasonable limits so that we defacto our own CO 9and no more fees being paid to Council for a "charter fee", etc.).

I think the Charter model is so entirely not understood by many of us.  I wonder how many on this forum realize that it is supposed to be a CO function to review and ensure that any adult who would be driving youth on a unit activity have certain coverage limits on their auto insurance policy? When's the last time you saw a unit actually checking that?

11 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Eliminating the CO relationship would have the BSA moving toward the system used by the GSUSA, where every unit leader would be directly under the authority of the BSA.  The GSUSA blogs are packed with bitter complaints about how volunteers, who are required to sign some kind of contract-style document, are subjected to being dismissed from that organization by the local GSUSA executives and senior volunteers for "noncompliance".  I don't know much about GSUSA and am certain I have misstated the details -- but the essence is correct.  Scoutmasters and everyone else would be subject to removal from their positions.  Our CO loves the idea that we meet on Saturday mornings and do not sell popcorn (we use dues and fundraising receptions to raise our budget), but I don't know what my new BSA supervisors would think.   The CO system protects the independence of each unit's operating style because decisions are reviewed by our CO.  Be careful for what you wish for.

You presume that the COs are actually engaged and it is operating that way.  I will say for my unit, but also my district, it is not.  There has been only 2 COs from my district that have attended a district or council wide meeting in the past three years (as admitted by our now past-District Chair).  Our CO has never met with nor spoken to anyone from council/District in the past 5 years.  The model is not working.  

2 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

I registered as an ASM for the first time in 1971.  Just a simple adult registration, did not specify position (other than the fact that 18 I could not be a SM)

In today's world, I had to fill out one adult app (with YPT certificate attached) as a Unit Commissioner, another as a Den Leader, another as a MB counselor, again as an ASM, and once more as ADC for roundtable.  I would have had to do another to change designation in the pack from DL to committee member, but I made that change when doing online recharter, which is the only time the change can be made without another paper form.  Every one of those also required YPT certificates to be attached, even though council personnel can see online when I did YPT and when it expires.  Definitely needs to be simplified.

AMEN! We have to also do the BSA background check form, and then a MA specific CORI form, and for some roles Council requires us to do YPT every year for some ungodly reason.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

As a unit leader, why should I be driving the active engagement from the CO?  Shouldn't that by the CO & COR's role?  Our unit leaders have enough to do with managing a unit let alone trying to train the CO on how to be a CO.

Our CO has no building.  They provide $0 to us.  They don't help find leaders.  We have been attempting to get a solid COR with no success.  The only decent COR we had was also our DE which caused issues. No one from their club wants to be a COR.  I agree they don't want to be involved in day-to-day running of the unit … but the fact is they are barely aware that we exist other when we help at their fundraiser.   Basically, we ended up with them because our PTO dropped us in the 1990s.  We became a friend of unit there but that was risky so a leader at our current CO said they would be willing to sign our charter. 

If the CO model was working well, organizations would be contacting the BSA to setup and charter units.  Every CO would have their COR really own the unit.  Instead, most unit leaders are hunting for COs they can convince to take on their charter.  Unit leaders are tracking down their barely existent COR and IH to get signatures on a charter app.  I have never met my IH as my DE still helps me get his approval.  At that point, why even bother with the CO model?  I know there are good ones out there, but they seem few and far between. 

Getting back on topic of sacred cows ... I would kill the CO … or at least allow a hybrid model.  Essentially allow the BSA council to be the CO of units.  For those units with COs, they can follow the current model.  I understand that could impact how COR voting is counted, but at this point I think we have bigger issues to deal with.

I'm agreeing with you.  My opening statement on hearing what they want is for the Council to do, not us as unit adults.  Ours has flat out told us to forge their signature, it is up to us to run the thing.

10 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I would be surprised by that. I think when they said re-branding them meant "what does the BSA it's programs mean to the world", not "renaming". That is just speculation on my part. I assume the Girl Scout lawsuit will end up being nothing other than "don't ever call them girl scouts", but then again, speculation. 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  I think they want to stop our org continuing to call itself B as well, if that is now not what any level of our org is.

When it comes to OA, yes, the membership change has been compounding the woes of the order overall.  It indeed, by and large in every Lodge, became the council camp workforce- doing work at Ordeal is what is embedded to the "trials" on sealing membership (not sure everyone here is a member, so I'll leave it there).  However, as it became providing Beaver Days, and as councils here in the Northeast began to merge, and there were now often more than one camp in a council, it became even more used as a workforce, we moved beyond service as anything other than camp workers.  To me, we got there because councils were becoming cash strapped, and they saw "free labor" as the answer.  Fellowships for many Lodges became video-gaming fests or anything else that didn't take $ to operate.  Hardly made them anything special.  I've suggested to our Section leadership to develop some conversation about Lodges rethinking Fellowship weekends to become high-adventure weekends- go on a whitewater trip, a canoe trip, a backpacking weekend, etc.  Section adults felt that was trying to turn Lodges against the camps, so didn't want to support it.  OK, so if we are going to be at camps, then have camp actually running- waterfront, shooting sports, climbing, etc.  Without that stuff, you aren't getting those outdoor minded kids coming.  

OA does have to be a sacred cow that needs to be retooled back to its roots, but I don't think it needs to just be canned.

Ultimately, I think where we are going with Venturing/Sea Scouts is to have them as Senior Scout programs, much as Leadership Corps and Explorer BSA was in the 70's.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

COs are already dropping units.  I know of a unit (prior to bankruptcy) that struggled to find a new CO when their PTO dropped them.  They eventually found a fire station to be a CO.  Several others ended up creating "Friends of …" COs.  At our district meetings I have seen 1 or 2 CORs attend ever. Very few seem to meet today's requirements. If more work/pressure/liability  was put on COs, I expect the whole CO/BSA system to collapse. 

Get actual engagement to CO's and ask them what they think their role should be.  So many just see it as they have a meeting space to provide, and if the unit(s) give back a little service- whether that is some landscape cleanup once a year, or flag placement for Memorial Day, or being active participants at Veteran's Day events.  That is all that the majority want.  They don't want to be involved in the day-to-day running of the unit, or the "politics" of the unit.

I know of 4 units that have a "friends of", and two of them are completely fictitious orgs, another is actually incorporated, and another is incorporated but not the actual named CO.  Both of the later, for what it is it worth, are not exactly what the BSA wants, so why any of them are allowed to exist... Goes to my biggest beef, is council only give two cares about #'s, not actually making sure the program runs as it is supposed to.  That would be my sacred cow that needs to gets sacrificed.