yknot

There is indeed a greater urge to get outdoors. The problem is that the urge has decreased within scouting. It's become very advancement and Eagle Scout driven. It's not universally attracting that many outdoors types. I've been pointing this out for a long time. Liability issues are more involved than just worrying about whether you have a lawyer's kid along on the trip. You still need to have some kind of insurance, policies and procedures, etc. People may be enthusiastic about it until there is an issue and they are faced with personal liability.

I don't think you are being ignored, I just think the reality is that scouting is done and that it will be almost impossible to continue it as a grass roots activity. A group of parents will still need public goodwill and liability insurance.

Eh. When in scouts, I feel like the scout honorific has priority to build corps de sprit. I would never refer to someone as Dr. or Col. only Scoutmaster or ASM or Mr./Mrs. Some people here say they combine them together, such as Dr. ASM or Col. SM, but I think that is unwieldy.

This is often the case with so many issues that arise on this forum and it's why many of us are often here. So many of these issues could be resolved if BSA would clarify what it means. I understand that in many cases, legal liability is the reason for the vagueness or lack of a policy. But there are so many other issues where a a little more clarity or definitiveness would simplify things in the field.

I think this is something best left to the particular troop culture. If you have kids who are completely intimidated by adults, then allowing use of first names might relax them. If you have kids who lack basic respect and manners, then setting the tone with a Mr./Mrs./Ms. might be the way to go. They are used to the Mr./Mrs. model in school and most other youth activities so I tend to follow that. Personally, I don't think most American kids have a big problem with confidence. That's one of the few metrics on which U.S. students habitually outscore international students. I have sometimes addressed scouts as Mr. Last Name as well but that's usually just been when I've been trying to get someone's attention. It does work, lol. One of the most effective leaders I ever had used surnames but also gave almost everyone nicknames. His methods were unique, but they created an incredible sense of corps de esprit. I think good leaders just figure it out.

That scenario assumes BSA would survive a post bankruptcy reorganization and be able to make future contributions to a fund. BSA's membership has declined for reasons other than just the abuse scandal. Corporate level fundraising has also declined, and I think it will be even harder to inspire donor enthusiasm when donations either directly or indirectly would fund compensation.

The kids in the Southern contingent of our family address all adults as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Reunion visits tend to make you feel as if you've had a sudden promotion to something ...

How would that work with a Congressional Charter?

Agreed. I feel like I'm in nursery school.

Adult to adult --- First name Scout to adult -- Mr./Mrs./Ms. No professional honorifics Adult giving instructions and referencing another adult -- Mr./Mrs./Ms. I don't like it when kids address adults without a courtesy title, but that might be more a reflection of our demographics. Some of the kids around here could use reminders about basic manners and social courtesies, especially in formal communications.

RIP http://blog.atlantabsa.org/hank-aaron-boy-scout/

It might be good if the reorganization gets scouting out of the merchandizing and printing business. I think there is still some value in having a paper record of sign offs for those that like that, but then it could simply be a sign off booklet and not a hefty four color handbook. If you didn't have to pay to print merit badge booklets, then it would make sense to keep niche interest merit badges like stamp collecting around for the small numbers of scouts who still want to do them.

Can you blame them? Most people sitting in the unit, district, or even council chair don't see what an SE brings to the table. They see council workhorses serving most of their needs.

I don't think it's the pay that is at issue. It's who we are recruiting. We don't seem to hire competent people, but if we do, they leave or stay through altruism but suffer in frustration. This forum is full of stories about competent people being pushed out or around by the BSA farm system. There was a recent discussion about what DEs and DCs and Councils do and it was mind boggling how dysfunctional the whole structure is. If you don't hire competent people, or competent people are unable to operate within your system, then every salary is going to be resented.

The titular heads of virtually every other organization this year issued year end statements of thanks and support to their employees/membership/customers/etc. If Mosby was a good leader worthy of a six figure salary, he would have issued a statement of thanks to the rank and file for their efforts to keep the ship afloat during Covid and navigate the challenges of this year. Short, sweet, motivating. However, nothing.

Mosby. Exactly. Where is our Captain? What leader does not communicate with his/her troops? Like... at all?

I don't know what an acceptable salary would be but I do know that what I would expect of a fairly paid executive corps would be an organization that is not in bankruptcy after a history of missteps. One could argue that organizational mismanagement abetted the child abuse scandal as well as other controversies that have damaged scouting. Let's look at this differently: if scouting were thriving, or at least better positioned to manage this crisis, I don't think anyone would be taking note of executive salaries.

It's actually not yellow journalism. It might be one sided, but it's factual. It could have been worse because it didn't go into many other related aspects of this case that continued well into the 2000s. Whatever you think of what's happening to BSA, you have to be impressed about what that young kid endured and how hard he worked to make sure it stopped happening to other kids at great cost to himself.

I think that's the nut of the funding problem. Councils have a hard time showing benefit to youth. All people see is what looks like bloated overhead.

I'm not so sure. Do you have any examples of Councils cutting fees? Most I know of either held fees or increased fees this year. I also haven't heard of any units refunding fees or offering discounts. Also, our Council is trying to do the right thing as far as staying afloat and holding onto a camp property, but that means charging more at a time when services are reduced.

I think I was talking more in terms of trying to market the increasing expenses to newer scouts and families. Great if you can access a huge pdf to parse through but I think Councils who want to recruit newer families need to work harder to be more transparent, i.e., act like other organizations and include a pie chart or some other breakdown prepared for you that shows you what you are getting for your investment. If 70% of the Council budget is going towards salaries then I think you have to spell out what those positions do to benefit scouts at the unit level.

This is something I just don't understand about scouting. Almost every other youth organization, other organizations, businesses, are waiving cancellation fees or discounting fees during Covid. For example, no sector has been hit harder than the arts/entertainment sector but I've gotten refunds for every single thing I had tickets to and couldn't get to because of Covid. I will say I have gotten some very nicely worded requests to eschew the refund and consider it a donation which I have sometimes done.

I think a lot of times most of us are also thinking Troop level where we have already been the boiled frog for several years. New parents coming into scouts aren't looking for transparency in terms of 'let me peruse through an inch thick budget'. Their version of transparency, or what they want to know is, 'how much of the money I give you is being spent on my kid' or in some way benefits them.

I think Council fees should replace FOS for current registrants. I think an FOS appeal could still be targeted to alumni if a Council has its records in order. I am concerned though that the Council fee might just become another bucket you are expected to pay into. Our Council instituted the maximum Council fee this year. We still had a pitch for FOS. We were still asked, though not required, to participate in popcorn sales. We had additional pitches for a Covid relief fund. Granted there was no hard sell for any of these things other than the new Council fee, but it has been a constant ask. One thing about instituting a Council fee instead of FOS is that I think you lose corporate matching funds for those who have that benefit.

I really like that idea. It would cut down on the repetitiveness and homework like components in the badges. I did something like this years ago in cubs for some of the Webelos pins where they duplicated what was covered in school. For Geologist, for example, there was already a class trip to a mineral mine. Since the entire Den attended, and den leaders went as chaperones, we counted that towards the pin. In scouts, the Cit in Community and Cit in Nation MBs are redundant and repetitive with school curriculum. They could easily be combined and allowing grades or a teacher sign off or attaching copies of tests that demonstrate the knowledge would make sense. I also like the idea of allowing more choice within broader content areas.