an_old_DC

21 minutes ago, Cubber said:

At recharter, due Dec 15, 2017. However, my understanding is that you can work with the council on a later date to amend, if there are extenuating circumstance, which is what he is attempting to do. 

If they do not successfully recharter then all this is a moot point. Until next year. 

The issue centers on if there literally are no Scouts. If many Scouts aged out and the rest quit and are not paying dues, there are no Scouts. Regardless of whether the unit has a recruitment plan and program in place or not, zero Scouts means no charter. On the other hand, if there are some 16 year old Eagles who are inactive but their parents or the CO pay dues just to keep them on the roster, or maybe some other Scouts who are inactive but parents are still paying dues in case the Scouts want to get active again, then that's different.

Either way, it isn't a troop to visit. How can they even have a troop meeting with no Scouts?

1 hour ago, Cubber said:

...

The CC/COR and I both agree we are here to support the boys and their families in their scouting experience as our first priority. He is a good person, extremely dedicated to scouting, with a long history in the BSA.  I respect him and his authority. We just currently disagree on the this issue, and I am confident we can reach an understanding that works for everyone.

...

If the CC's first priority truly is to support the Scouts in their Scouting experience then he will not have a problem with Webelos visiting active and healthy troops so each Webelos can identify a troop that is a good fit for him personally.

3 minutes ago, perdidochas said:

Your Webelos have to visit with a troop. If your CO doesn't have a troop to visit, they cannot finish AOL.    The COR should have thought about this years ago, not now when they have no troop.  

Yes. You and I were posting at the same time.  A troop with zero Scouts is not a troop.

@Cubber when do unit charters expire in your council? This troop, with zero Scouts, is dead and may not receive another charter before your Webelos bridge to a troop. Why visit a dead troop that may be about to be dissolved?

There are serious unit-health issues with that troop, which the COR, CC and committee have neglected.

From that same article:

”Like a lot of troops, 414’s scoutmaster is one of the moms. She submits Sydney’s applications for membership and rank advancement to the BSA every time, despite knowing that each will be rejected.”

these are all rogue units just doing whatever the leaders want. It makes me wonder what other BSA policies they just choose to ignore.

Shame on all these leaders letting her tag along and “unofficially” earn ranks since she was 4.

@RememberSchiff thanks for the link. I must be thinking of some other girl, who probably doesn't have an attorney father and PR team.

Maybe I’m thinking of a different girl and Boy Scout troop, but hasn’t the Troop Ireland tagged along with held BORs for her and submitted advancement reports that were rejected and sent back? Somebody has been telling her she “unofficially” earned ranks, right?

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Speaking of which, I heard a rumor of an updated YPT and Den Chief training coming this spring. Anyone else hear about this?

 

I have not heard about Den Chief. New YPT will need to be taken annually (rather than every two years) and will take over one hour to complete.

31 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Sounds like you have it all figured out then. 

No, I don't have it all figured out--that's why I continue to teach training classes and take classes myself. I want to learn and grow and be able to do my job better. However,  I do have a lot of time, money and some blood, sweat and tears invested in doing my best to ensure the boys in my community have a chance to be involved with units delivering a quality Cub and Boy Scout program. My father is an Eagle Scout and he was my Scoutmaster. I am an Eagle Scout, as are both of my sons. I have a lot of years invested in BSA. 

I am insulted when people new to Scouting take a condescending tone and are dismissive of my experience. 

5 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

There are some parents of boys already in the program who think the same thing.

Fair enough and I certainly saw it when I was SM. But if a pack is currently struggling to find den and other leaders, I think it’ll be challenging to find moms or other women to be additional Den Leaders. As for troops, I don’t see tons of female ASMs right now.

Nobody knows, of course, so maybe I’m wrong. YMMV

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

@an_old_DC have you heard of other "soft launch" councils? So far, this is the only one which I have found.

Yes, although it is unofficial at this point, so I do not want to name them. A Cubmaster of a pack with approximately 70 Scouts was asked by a Council-level Pro if he would be willing to soft launch allowing girls in the pack. In another council I am told the exec board is discussing the same thing. This is all unofficial with nothing in writing.

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

 

Yes, there will need to be more leaders.  That means welcoming to the new people who show up to help out.   

 

“The new people who show up to help out”?

Uh, sure. I mean if that’s the way it works in your community, that’s great. It doesn’t work like that in my area. No adult volunteers =no unit.

My hunch is that some parents of girls Cub Scout age think BSA stands for “baby sitters anonymous” and they can’t wait for boys and girls to be in the same pack so they can drop the kids off at a pack meeting on their way to date night.

I have heard about this “soft launch” crap from buddies in other councils, although nothing is official yet. Apparently it will be a way to “judge interest in the Program.”

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Regarding troops and going coed. I've been told by Scouters that it will happen in my district, heck my troop is the first one to tell me this, because of the lack of resources and manpower to have two separate units.

When I brought it up to my Council Key three at the town hall meeting, they ignored it , and everyone else in the room agreed it will happen.

Even the CSE in his 20 questions video indirectly states it will happen.

Same experience here. I have heard volunteers say this, and if brought up among Council Professionals, they change the topic.

3 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Yeah new interface had me thrown too. I think it works when you click the + sign for each post you want to quote. In the lower right a "multi quote" box pops up (at least for me) and then you click that.

OK, thanks...and I guess the little "trophy" emoticon means "thanks". I guess

17 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

It will be interesting to see if the already thin commissioner corps downsizes once girls are in. How many DC's don't subscribe to the new policy and will decline the honor? How many adults that agree with it will have the time to devote to being a DC if they're trying to build a girl unit?

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to reply to two posts in one post of my own.

Nobody has outright admitted it yet, but I have a hunch my already thin corps will get a lot smaller sometime next spring. I cant say the decision to allow girls to participate is popular among my staff, and National's sneakiness about how the decision was reached is even more unpopular (among my team).

16 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

No offense, but I have not seen a commissioner in 12 years. Looking at our district website we have 36 troops in our district and only 2 DCs. A larger number of packs and only 4 DCs for them. I know for a fact 2 of those 6 people are nearly immobile. The other four are so involved with their troops that they wouldn't have time to visit 5 units a year.

If BSA is betting on DCs to pick up the slack they may want to count how many belly buttons they have in those roles who can actually do the job. I'll wager most districts have paper DCs only, if any. I know mine is like that, as are the surrounding districts.

None taken, Col. Unfortunately, that is often the case. I don't have a large staff of Unit Commissioners, and even then, a few do the real lion's share of work.

I don't believe National will bet on commissioners of any kind helping--it'll be up to unit leaders.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

 

The real losers in this will be the girls. Why? Because the whole program for girls is being thrown together by a group of know-nothings. If units are "separate but equal" (meaning: boys in one troop, girls in another) you will need to replicate the entire boy-led, patrol method troop structure TWICE. That means TWICE the leaders or TWICE the work for the same leaders. Either way you have a big problem. Most current leaders are well beyond being tapped out and over-extended. I will be most of us here wear or wore about 5-10 different hats, be they at the unit, district or council level. I'd wager my 2018 pay checks that less than 5% will sign up for that extra, girls-only work. That means you have FIND and TRAIN a whole bunch of new leaders to run those all-girl units. If you've ever tried to recruit Cub or Boy Scout adult leaders you know exactly how hard that will be.

 

...and as soon as they have trouble recruiting leaders, it becomes a Commissioner problem because somebody is going to have to visit the unit on a "Parents Night" and facilitate a "somebody has got to help out here, folks," conversation. And then constantly monitor them to ensure they really are delivering the Program and not cutting corners.

47 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

 

 

So that’s what Wis Momma wrote before she edited her post. Male Chauvinists huh? Terrific

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I admit both my disgust and disappointment with this thread. I was working with two out of state contractors this week who are scout leaders. They both told me their number one issue in running the troop is helicopter parents. The couple of their examples were very reminiscent of this discussion. While we had to deal with a couple of over zealous moms, it wasn’t anywhere near the number one issue. Both these leaders believe bringing in girls will kill the program as we know it. 

Im so glad my son’s got to experience a boy run program. 

Barry

I would give this post about 100 up votes if I could. My Commissioner corps reports that among the units they serve, the most common problem has become helping leaders who are worn out from dealing with helicopter and bulldozer parents looking to smooth their sons’s path so he doesn’t encounter obstacles.

Many of my staff are long time Scouters who are products of the program themselves, have been CM and SM, and have been Commissioners and district volunteers a long time, and so have a wealth of experience. Bringing in girls and their parents? As Luke Skywalker used to say “They have a bad feeling about this.” It isn’t the girls themselves that will be the problem, it’s how the units and therefore Program will change due to parents and unit leaders.

47 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

....Ask any Scouter who was in an OA ceremony team as a youth. No more "war paint", no more bare chests, no more firing arrows to start the fire, no more "taps" at tap outs.

....

BSA is already headed down this path. You wait.

My time spent on an OA ceremonies team is some of my favorite memories of Scouting as a youth.

I am also an associate chapter advisor. The guys in our chapter have a lot of fun and it's a great experience for them, but when us "old timers" tell stories about what we were doing as ceremonialists back in the day, ..well, you can tell the youth are jealous.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

Locally this is correct with one exception: Boys over 14 are being given the option of going to troops. Few are from what I hear. Why? As leaders tell it 1) LDS boys are reluctant to join non-LDS units, and 2) Some guys are more in to other things than what non-LDS units do as Scouts. I asked a friend what that meant and he was pretty frank. He said his crew basically worked on stuff to get guys to Eagle and didn't do much "real Scouting" (his words). He also said the LDS guys in his old crew "weren't really in to Scouting" anymore.

I was wondering what the uptake is in other areas. It seems most LDS guys here are not going to "other units" as might be expected.

Col., I meant the boys in crews and teams are being moved back into the LDS troops. That way they can finish work toward Eagle and still go on high adventure trips, if they and the troop choose.

29 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

There are three of us that have younger daughters (two of which are currently in GS) of Cub Scout and soon to be Boy Scout age. I have spoken to the other two fathers and all three of us, and our daughters, are looking forward to joining BSA. No idea as of yet if our CO (or another local CO) will be supporting such.

Well, you better find some moms too. If National follows the Venturing model, registered and trained female leaders will be required.

"Adult Supervision/Coed Activities

Male and female adult leaders must be present for all overnight coed Scouting trips and outings, even those including parent and child. Both male and female adult leaders must be 21 years of age or older, and one must be a registered member of the BSA."

1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

Ok, I've read the thread. Gotta say I am confused now more than ever. Our LDS leaders here locally are saying their 14 year-olds are "out". They noted that many will stick around and get their Eagle and then drop, and all LDS over-14 units would not recharter. All 11-13 year olds were welcome to stay in their units, and that there was an attempt to get them Eagle "as fast as possible". I took this to mean before they turned 14, but who knows.

Are my local LDS friends on the same page with the church? Or are they being cowboys?

Everything I have seen from National is that the boys +14 years old in crews and teams have been moved back into troops. LDS still charters troops--it's just crews and teams being dropped.