yknot

I went from hating the idea of this badge and being very dismissive of it to thinking it has a valid place for a variety of reasons.

I agree with a lot of this. I think Cit in Society is really a different animal and should remain its own. I have said before though as well as you that I think the other three Citizen badges are redundant with curriculum and should be merged. I think there's a lot that could be cut out. I do, however, think there is an area that, given the organization's dependence on the outdoors, has to me been oddly overlooked at the macro citizenship level and that is the role of the citizen in Land Conservation and Resource Management. It might explain why so many professional scouters who come up through the program seem to have no comprehension of how to manage, preserve, and protect some of the legacy properties that they have had the privilege of owning (truly past tense in, sadly, too many cases).

I prefer to look at March to March numbers for that reason. The majority of recharter extensions, etc., have been cleared by then so the numbers are the cleanest. I think the 2023 March numbers are particularly important because most of the dust will have cleared in the aftermath of the UMC recharter extensions which end Dec. 31.

I think you're right about the GMC churches. It's not just LGBTQ issues, there's a basket of issues including the UMC's support of BLM type initiatives and the proper role of women. It hasn't been articulated in some of the more public statements but some of these breakaway churches also don't want women pastors and some other things that align with more conservative views, and that makes scouting even less of a fit for them. The UMC churches, on the other hand, have been struggling with membership erosion/aging and financial woes. UMC is working with consultants like Steeple.com to help local churches attract extra revenue by hosting telecom towers, EV charging stations, etc., and renting out any space they can, which means scout groups may have to be prepared to rental or usage fees. A couple of non UMC churches near me have recently started charging community groups that they have historically supported for room usage and storage. I can't imagine UMCs will be far behind.

I'm going to be crazy here and say you don't need to make every single camp out an all weekend affair. We did plenty of local single night camp outs just to get outside during tough to schedule months or extra nights because someone needed one. You don't need to take a trailer, you don't need to cook feasts and lug tons of food. After work Friday night to Saturday a.m. works well. Plenty of time to hike and do stuff. Almost zero food prep/meals unless someone needs a signoff. My nephew's troop did a couple local Sunday night camp outs and the novelty was kids/parents getting up at 5 a.m. to shower and get to school and then swagger around the halls all day.

I think it's based on the realization that you're either all in and very hands on in running the unit or you are not. The FUA and Affiliation agreements just seem like they could be used to continue to "charter" a unit in all but name, leaving the same kinds of in practice oversight issues in place. You probably shouldn't have youth on your property unless you are willing to take responsibility for them.

There are probably a lot of reasons for that including that as one of the largest CO groups, UMC were affected by a significant number of lawsuits and claims. Unlike the Catholic church, though, which has been experiencing this all along outside of BSA, many in the Methodist community were shocked by the reality of their liabilities as the bankruptcy unfolded. I also think you have to look at what's going on with the Methodist Church overall. Like BSA, they have seen significant membership erosion and who's left is aging. Where I am in the northeast, they were mostly rural hamlet churches that are now closed, sold, or about to close. A chartering organization agreement requires active supervision and while many of these older congregations might have sentimental reasons for wanting to continue to charter the units they've hosted for years the reality is that many are not capable of it. To make exceptions for the few exceptions creates a management headache for leadership that is being downsized.

What we always did was involve them in the planning and preparations for HA trips if they wanted to be, especially any hiking or swimming, but otherwise they went to summer camp as normal. We tried to do summer camp in early July and HA trips end of July/early August because we had a few older scouts who wanted to do both. We generally did HA trips (Philmont, Sea Base) every other year although we did a lot of ad hoc HA type trips on our own. Years ago, the unit was large enough to do a full contingent to summer camp and a smaller, older group to do HA, generally with a mixed unit crew. More recently, the summer camp group has either been provisional or paired up with another unit to take a whole campsite. It works out, especially if the plan is that HA is something the younger scouts not only have to be prepared for but is also a privilege to be worked towards. Over the years, there have been a few kids who were really interested in HA from the get go and there was no shortage of opportunities to fall in with crews from other local units or farther afield. It's not an issue to have have two tracks in a unit.

Yes, this is the same Mt. Washington and it is one of the more fascinating and extreme places on earth, in a weather sense, despite being in the relatively tame Northeastern USA. There is an interesting book about the Presidential range and that particular mountain and the microclimates and changeable weather that can occur. It has claimed more than 100 lives over the years. The book is called Not Without Peril and it's good if you are interested in mountaineering topics and mountains. Things have greatly improved as far as support but it's still a dangerous place to hike. A couple of people have died just this year. It's not someplace I'd take scouts, but to each their own.

Based on everything I am seeing, I think that's smart. Lots of turmoil brewing in Methodist Land.

There have been a few random reports of other UMCs going "rogue" in conferences that will allow it and trying this as well. I don't think we'll know if it's really a possible option until after the dust settles on the current recharter session. One of the issues is that BSA has an agreement with UMC not to charter any UMC units past Dec. 31 at this point. The agreement clearly states that only the FUA or the Affiliation scenarios will be allowed. It's not really clear what really happens if the units are rechartered anyway and UMC finds out. BSA would effectively be breaking their word to them. We know BSA does that all the time and they may not be that concerned about it, but it's unknown how UMC will view that or what the ultimate outcome will be. There have been a few random reports of other UMCs going "rogue" in conferences that will allow it and trying this as well. I don't think we'll know if it's really a possible option until after the dust settles on the current recharter session. One of the issues is that BSA has an agreement with UMC not to charter any UMC units past Dec. 31 at this point. The agreement clearly states that only the FUA or the Affiliation scenarios will be allowed. It's not really clear what really happens if the units are rechartered anyway and UMC finds out. BSA would effectively be breaking their word to them. We know BSA does that all the time and they may not be that concerned about it, but it's unknown how UMC will view that or what the ultimate outcome will be.

I'm not commenting on the political aspects here, but on the face of it this seems to be an inspired choice for this particular nonprofit given the challenging issues they face: https://www.sierraclub.org/meet-ben-jealous What seems relevant to me to our discussion is that here is someone who has a demonstrated record of significantly improving the nonprofits he has led on a nonprofit salary. He has a history of being effective in his role, something that we would wish for BSA. This choice also recognizes that the future of the environmental movement lies in the urban landscape. It's a very bold choice that has likely challenged some of the more traditionalist views in their organization, and yet they did it. The further parallel I see to scouting is that in many ways any future, sustainable success for scouting also has to involve the needs of the urban landscape -- although I can't really see BSA recruiting anyone comparable.

Don't know if Reuters link will work but if interested you can Google direct. Didn't see it posted here. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-say-246-bln-settlement-inflated-by-bogus-claims-2022-11-08/

I've been in positions where I was technically in charge of the whole US region. My salary wasn't high six figures. It has nothing to do with size of territory and everything to do with performance and results. Competent people can certainly get stuck in bad situations particularly in a moribund organization like this one, but trying to blanket defend large salaries by claiming they are less than for profit means that every other nonprofit out there should also be mismanaged and failing -- and they are not. I would also argue that a lot of these people would be unemployable at even their current salaries in the private sector. Scout management, from what've experienced at the council and national levels, is ten years behind comparable outside corporate environments. They certainly don't speak the same language. So I am skeptical on multiple levels of the "we're getting a bargain so we should be grateful and complacent" line of thinking.

I couldn't agree more. I just don't think that's the role of the BOR in scouting. It's not like school or sports. The BOR is not your report or the final score. It's uniquely scouting. The progression is interwoven with program, and the BOR is not the provider nor the arbiter of that. It is not a retest. It has a formal aspect in confirming that all sign offs are in place and that the lengths of any terms of service have in fact been met and a BOR can and should be paused if those things are in question. Those are within its purview. Other than that it is a discussion by adults with the scout to assess the effectiveness of the program -- it is not an assessment of the individual scout. It is more like getting a passport than a driver's license. The problem with everyone getting credit for everything is a program problem that needs to be addressed by the committee with the SM and the program leadership team right down to any SPLs or senior scouts who may also be doing signoffs.

I think the old models don't work. I don't think the council should be so focused on generating income any more. That is how they have become so detached from what units need to survive and it's killing program, recruitment, retention, membership, and volunteer sustainability. Councils ought to be rebuilt around serving the units. Fundraising has also completely changed. The mix for scouting has to change to allow local units to directly solicit local businesses. The local businesses that are left do not want to give to a council that they perceive as having no connection to their community. They will, however, give to their local organizations or to people they interact with in the community.

None of the above is at all in conflict with anything I have said. If there is a claim that a sign off might be invalid or missing, or the scout's registration or completion of any relevant terms of service are in question based on recorded dates, then the BOR clearly follows the above procedures. If the advancements person is involved in BORs or their scheduling, most of those items are generally checked before the BOR is scheduled. I have been part of a BOR that followed the above process and was rightfully suspended because a scout had lost his part of his handbook. In recreating the missing pages he had not realized that he had parts of both an old and revised handbook and they had not been properly collated. The BOR was paused while he found someone who was able to give him a needed signoff. Had he not been able to do so that night, it would have been suspended to another day. I have been involved in other BORs where suspension was threatened because there were adult arguments over whether a scout had fully completed a leadership requirement. Unacceptable. You can question the objective validity of recorded dates at the BOR and then proceed as above as necessary but you can't question the subjective aspect of how well you thought the scout "led". It's been signed off already so it can't be "retested". Any discussion about that should have been held during the scout's term of service. That is also noted in GTA. By the sign offs, unless you have reason to question them. But again, those powers, if you follow GTA, are much more limited than many scouters like to accept which leads to a lot of unnecessary stress and angst for scouts. The Scoutmaster -- and I use that term as representative for the program and the entire team that implements it -- is responsible for ensuring education and testing are taking place. The BOR is not the judiciary in this situation. If the BOR reports to the Troop Committee that it has program concerns, it is the Committee's job to discuss with the Scoutmaster and program team. The scouts are not supposed to be in the middle of this.

No it's what I think. GTA makes a point of saying there should be no retesting -- that if a Scoutmaster has cleared a scout for a BOR then in his or her eyes, the youth has proven themselves ready. If youth are arriving at BORs with issues, that is a Scoutmaster and program problem, not a scout problem to be solved on the back of the scout during a high stress event. In this instance, I think it's odd that the BOR's reaction was punitive toward the scout rather than introspective about themselves. A BOR is essentially confirming rank completion in a scout who has been presented by the scoutmaster. It's not an oral presentation or morals test -- or even a uniform fashion show -- for an extra pass/fail grade. GTA makes that clear, or at least to me.

I don't think there is that big of a conflict because I think GTA makes it pretty clear that you are very limited in what a BOR can fail a scout for but if you do, you have to outline the steps they need to take, which would either be fix it or appeal. Units sometimes come up with their own requirements for things like minimum attendance, which they are allowed to do within reason, but generally they don't hold up on appeal or even make it out of the building because of all the other exemptions that are also outlined in GTA.

I agree and I think you're right I read this as you confirm all appropriate signoffs are in the record and that any other associated requirements, like registration or length of service, have been met. On page 20, GTSS states once something has been signed off on, it's been met and can't be retested. On page 22, it states scout spirit is to be assessed by how a scout lives daily life, something that would be known to the SM and not a BOR composed of committee members who may never encounter the scout except in passing. If the unit leader -- SM -- has cleared the scout for a BOR, the GTA indicates that requirement has been met. Nowhere in the GTA does is state that a BOR can fail a scout for being nonresponsive in the actual room out of fear of someone on the BOR or stage fright.

In 4-H I think it's pretty close although from my experience, and much as it is in scouting, it is very much driven by the individual youth and how they utilize the program. There are any number of growth opportunities in 4-H, not just specific to your club or interest, but also within the organization as a whole. There are all sorts of opportunities for youth leaders and development of leadership skills all the way up to National 4-H Congress occurring next month.

Yes. I think that's what I said? -- Charters extended and registrations collected. There will probably be a grace period but that should mostly sort out by March of next year.

The fees/registrations are being collected but if the charters fail, they have no home unless a new charter can be found. There are plenty of units collecting registrations without knowing who their charter will be after the December extension runs out, or are just now learning there is an issue.

That would normally be the case but what muddles this is the fate of the paused UMC units. Those extensions started in 2021 and now are extending fully through 2022. The real membership numbers won't be known until some time after December 31, 2022 when we are able to compare last quarter 2021 to first quarter 2023. What's also not clear is how "transferred" scouts are being captured in this. I don't think there's much solidity to be found in any numbers until this spring.

Those groupings match the progression I've seen. It's good to keep in mind not every kid likes or is good at working with younger kids. In fact a lot of them don't and frankly, that describes a lot of adults in scouting and even roles like teaching. I don't think you should necessarily see that as a negative, especially since she's good at other things. An older scout who has awareness of and relationships outside and beyond your troop is a huge asset. She may not be fulfilling some of the aspects of the SPL role but she is still showing leadership if she is interested in participating in inter unit activities and showing younger scouts what is available in scouting beyond the troop. She just has a different leadership focus maybe than her adult handlers. It certainly doesn't sound like she is just being lazy or a no show.