yknot

It's going to be interesting because the Methodist church is in the middle of a schism and some of those who are looking to break away are not paying some or all of their apportionments plus looking to take assets with them. It may be difficult or at least complicated to come up with payments for an undetermined period of time. Although in the face of $2 billion, $30 million is not a lot.

Possibly. It's regional so it might not apply everywhere else though and the dumping started last year. But this conference does involve a lot of churches. I think the UMC problem is bigger than scouts. They are having a lot of issues of their own and I think there is limited bandwidth to handle additional issues with scouts.

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee.

I don't know if it belongs here or not, but the regional UMC conference for my area sent budget guidelines out yesterday that broke down how much each local church has to contribute to the boy scout bankruptcy settlement over the next three years. A number of churches already aren't paying their current apportionment for a variety of reasons from financial to philosophical and political so this is interesting. Local UMC churches that did not have a history of chartering a unit thought they were going to be unscathed but all churches will be required to pay. It doesn't appear to be a lot of money but for those churches who are currently having difficulty paying the electric bill, or who have a deep philosophical argument, it's possibly a bit of a lit match. The reason I put this here is because I wonder what happens generally if a third party finds it is unable to honor its commitment to the settlement?

This isn't terribly sophisticated in look but it is classic strategy. The questions basically reinforce positive attributes or connections to scouting, even when posed as a negative question. The question simply repeats the four positive points to stay on message and influence behavior. Even when it's asking it in a negative way the question just reframes and restates the positive. This survey is triggering positive connections and reactions to scouting with the design and the way the questions are asked. If they really wanted your input on what works or doesn't works for a fundraising campaign, they would be asking different questions. This has been designed by a survey/development (fundraising) consultant. It is getting you to think, hey yes, I'm a scouter. Yes, scouting accomplishes all these wonderful things. How can I possibly say one is less important than the other? Gee, it's important to me that it survives. Yes, I've supported scouting in the past. Gee, I should support it again/now. If I support it now, I'll be part of a better future for scouting... Scouting is not doing anything nefarious that others aren't doing, but it's not factual to think it is anything other than a fundraising tactic.

It's not negative it's factual. This is also how political campaigns fundraise. If you are motivated enough to answer a survey question the likelihood increases that you will also be motivated to donate.

I'm more of the opposite opinion. Teaching kids to tailgate in the woods is not what camping and outdoor experiences should revolve around to me. If you are often lugging a dutch oven with you into the woods or carting firewood or water for cooking, I would say that's counterproductive. I don't like to see so many people spending time around camp fires or worrying about food when there are trails to hike, wildlife to see, streams to explore, etc. I could see value in one rank requirement revolve around cooking a party meal and the rest of it focused on meals that are portable, eat on the go, and leave a minimal trace. At some point we're also going to have wrap our heads around the fact that campfires in the woods, or any kind of flame, may become harder and more ill advised to do.

If they remain chartered through December that means that on paper the 2022 membership numbers will include UMC units. Otherwise, another precipitous drop from the 650,000 March number could be a problem. It was probably assumed that things would be settled by now and that the earlier October deadline couldn't affect the plan.

That's ridiculous. Edit: For starters, a significant percentage of linked gender troops in name have been functioning co-ed troops in practice. I know, I know -- they were not supposed to -- but plenty have been doing it nonetheless.

This is a feasible option for you if you have enough like minded, trained, and registered adult volunteers and leaders. During the first summer after Covid, there were many reports of units doing a week long or partial week camp on their own. Frankly, having this option in your wheelhouse is probably going to be critical for many units going forward as more and more traditional scout camps are sold.

From everything I've seen, heard, and read over the years it is a desire for more functional fabric, fit, design, and components. Cost is part of the design and components part -- many people want uniforms streamlined to reduce cost, particularly the cub uniform where multiple new components need to be purchased for every rank. Telling people to go look in secondhand stores, which is something I repeatedly see recommended in scouting unlike other youth activities and organizations, isn't a great strategy. To me that means the uniform is a unique barrier in scouting for many.

I heard about that and had interpreted it as a form of civil disobedience in support of making the uniform more functional. Anyone else know if that was the case or not?

I think if kids liked wearing the uniform and found it functional and comfortable, it wouldn't be such an issue. You often don't really have to fight a kid to get them into a sports uniform -- they don't mind wearing it because it fits and is more functional. Many people look to the military and law enforcement as a parallel, but just last week I noticed patrolmen in my town wearing khakis and a navy golf shirt with reflective tapes on them. Not a traditional form, but they looked good, comfortable, and the reflective tape is a no brainer -- why doesn't BSA put that on uniforms for safety instead of one of million patches when we are the only youth organization that actually does stuff with kids in the dark.

You can't just cut down the Tree of Heaven because it root sprouts and instead of one tree you've suddenly got a dozen runners. There is a process for killing them. The trees are almost as invasive as the SLF. Our county extension agent advised us on how to get rid of them. Chickens, gray catbirds, northern cardinals and preying mantis have been identified as preying on the nymphs and adults so do what you can to keep them around your property

I think most of those things are things that adults think are great marketing for scouts. However, most kids who go to the supermarket with mom don't think, "Gee, I'd like to dress up in that dorky uniform and ring a bell..." Or stand around a flag... or ask for soup cans... or march down the street in the hot sun... or give a talk in front of adults... Those are not naturally fun kid things for most kids. I've recounted this a couple times but the last den I crossed over, they couldn't wait to be scouts. They kept hearing how fun it was going to be, that they'd be camping and hiking and shooting, etc., etc. But at the crossover, all the new scoutmaster (who meant well) talked about was Eagle. What an honor it would be. How it would be really hard work, and they'd want to give up, but that they should persevere because it would help them get into college and they could put it on their resume when they went for a job... They were 10. They deflated before my eyes. We aren't just bad at marketing, we are the anti marketers.

There is none but it seems some councils/conferences have had their own interpretations. It's very unlikely any of them will be able to go rogue longer than the October deadline.

I don't recall specifics and can't find the thread -- maybe because it happened in one of those tangential discussions -- but a year or so ago people were trying to clarify mandatory reporting requirements and there were a lot of comments to this effect. Sadly, it's not really new just not well publicized.

I think the original question was what kind of tools should you carry for breakdowns. The best, cheapest, and most portable tool is always prevention so I like your hitch idea. There is no BSA safety training regarding trailers and towing and unit competency is all over the map as is how units deal with having a trailer.

I don't have much to add to this other than that I know a lot of people with troop trailers who maybe don't do enough routine preventive maintenance, don't use them enough and let them sit too long, and don't have a pre departure check list. Don't let it sit over the winter or for several months because you only use it for certain kinds of camp outs. Hook it up and pull it out for local trips. Have a pre departure checklist which includes looking under the trailer, checking the floor and the load distribution/stabilization, checking lights. Don't be the only one who is always hooking it up. Always grab someone to doublecheck you. The stupidest thing -- and it happens not infrequently even with experienced people -- is forgetting to hook up the brake plug or the safety chains or not snapping the pin or some other minor, obvious thing. It's not hard to get distracted when a ton of kids are around.

I watched the zoom meeting with UMC/BSA when they detailed the plan and it was pretty clear option 1 was not viable. However, councils and churches have gone rogue before so I wasn't surprised to read that some councils and churches were coming up with different interpretations. There have been several UMC COs in various places that have refused to drop their units although I expect a similar result as this. The UMC is having a lot of problems of its own.

I definitely think it should be an option yesterday.

Realistically the only way to manage evolving youth gender issues is to have blended dens and troops. Otherwise units would practically have to maintain up to date spreadsheets on their scouts orientation and identification preferences, which is not only intrusive and icky but can change and/or evolve within the year, sometimes multiple times. Some of the evolving youth identifications also no longer fit into clear cut boy/girl gender or orientation categories. If you are claiming to offer single gender dens and troops but an incident happens because a leader is not aware that a youth's situation has changed and made adjustments, it opens up a possible new level of liability for leaders, scouts, and BSA. There is also liability in trying to be any kind of gatekeeper, such as "You identified as boy at the beginning of the year, so according to BSA you are a boy on paper and belong in this troop until the year is done." There is also the volunteer issue with units not able to come up with the necessary volunteers to run gender segregated dens or troops. My preference would be to allow units all options -- single gender boy or girl or blended -- but I think liability and volunteer management issues will push scouting towards blended, or family, units soon.

I can't agree. These kinds of things don't repeatedly happen in well run organizations. Just one example : the CO structure has been dysfunctional for decades and that dysfunction helped enable child predators to infiltrate the organization. BSA has never addressed it. It took an outside organization -- the UMC -- to force a substantive change as part of a bankruptcy proceeding.

I frankly don't care, within reason, if people are paid or volunteer. I care much more about whether they are doing a good job. I think in scouts we have seen that there is no monopoly at the top, on the part of either paid professionals or volunteers, regarding poor leadership, miscalculation, and mismanagement of the organization. The good folks that have been there trying to swim upstream have just kept getting pushed to shore apparently.

I don't think adult regalia has a place in a youth organization other than a particular color shirt or lanyard or lapel pin to indicate who is an adult leader/coach/official and who is not. In scouts, there's a legitimate use in identifying council, troop number and program. I have a hard time, though, appreciating what the purpose is for signifying anything more for adults in scouting. To me, the often cited idea of using patches, badges and pins to start conversations or to try to publicize a program aspect is like trying to communicate by semaphore or some other obscure method: There are more direct and effective ways, and it makes the purpose suspect to do otherwise. I don't know of any other youth organization that does this. The focus is better kept on youth accomplishments than adult ones.