Mrjeff

You and I really see eye to eye, I agree whole heartedly.

Let's boil this down a little more. If First Baptist Church, Anywhere USA, wants to sponsor a Scout Troop, thay are going to sponsor a troop and the leaders and members are going to march to the best of the First Baptist Church. The BSA is not going to interfere as long as the dots are dotted and the fees are paid. That's reality. If a local council, with its local executive board of local community leaders, businessmen, and dedicated volunteers do not want to merge, then they aren't going to merge. That's reality. I think that the units should run their program and the councils need to support the units. The bottom line is that people have lost sight of the fact that Scouting is for kids to get together and have some fun doing it. If anyone has been around long enough you will remember that when a scout reached first class, they were at the top of the heap and anything else was iceing on the cake. In fact if a scout earned "Star" they were referred to as "A first class scout who earned xxx merit badges" and so through to Eagle. If there are any "Traveling Men" reading this who are also OA members you know exactly where the OA got its beginnings and it wasn't from some national committee making up policy and rules. If Scouting is going to be successful the focus needs to go back to the young people and all of the extra malarkey needs to be flushed down the toilet.

I'm not talking about what happens if a council loses its charter. I said that it's up to the local council executive boards weather or not a council should merge or be incorporated into another council. This is especially true since the BSA made the public statement that they did not own the councils. If the BSA, which is a wasteful and redundant organization were to try and force a merger onto a council that refused to merge, it would cause such a s$@t storm, local support including the money, would completly disappear in that area.

Wow,wow,wow!!! I couldn't agree more. Scouting is not a classroom and is not done is a classroom setting. Your observations are spot on. Merit badges provide kids with an introduction to a wide world of subjects taught by subject matter experts. These experts don't need the latest technological teaching aids. The mb councilor covers the requirements and ensures that the scout has completed the requirements, no more and no less. Merit badges used to require a scout to locate a councilor, call him/her and make an appointment, go to the appointment, and complete the merit badge. Youth protection guidelines make this a little challenging, but that's not the subject here. This actually helped prepare the scout for real life where these skills can be applied to job applications, interviews, and presenting material to people they may not know. Somewhere some committee has skewed and reversed this process and has focused on the teaching aspect rather then the learning. I don't think that one required merit badge should be offered at a merit badge university because the groups are too big and each scout can not possibly complete every requirement. Often times a badge is awarded just for showing up. For a personal example, kids who show up with a budget earn personal management in one or two one hour sessions because the requirements are just reviewed and briefly mentioned. I deliberately would not allow my grandson to complete this merit badge in this way. I drove him 50 miles to a reputable councilor who had him come back 4 times, was that was 4 100mile round trips, that's 400 miles. He EARNED that badge. I even heard one ASM make the statement "why bother, my son gen get all the required merit badges at merit badge university". I also agree that PLs, ASPLs, SPLs, Troop Guides, and Instructors should be "signing the books" and they should be using the well publicized EDGE method to do it! We need to put the outdoor world back into Scouting, get out of the classroom, and let our troop leaders LEAD and not just wear a patch.

Mergers and combining councils is the responsibility of the individual councils executive board and a national committee has no business discussing, promoting, or encouraging these actions.

How many times does "the program" have to be rewritten? How many times does Wood Badge" have to be rewritten? There's an old saying "If it ain't broke dont fix it" and I agree with that idea. Let the council work with the units to deliver whatever program meets the needs of the unit and national, which does not own the councils, worry about supply and logistics, and take care of whatever property they own after this debacle is over and keep their hands out of the local council business.

Absolutly no tests associated with merit badges. If properly completed and all of the requirements are fully reviewed and completed the educational aspect will be completed. I have seen the whole merit badge system watered down, skimmed over and viewed as just another thing that needs to be done to get to eagle. I dont think that any required merit badges should be offered at merit badge universities. The "classes" are usually filled to copacity and are way to large. Citizenship in the Nation is one of those that must be done in a small group in order to complete it properly. Merit badges are not just a means to an end, and the kids have enough testing at school that it shouldn't be part of scouting. Being a merit badge councilor is a great oppertunity for a subject matter expert to introduce young people to a subject in a fun and interactive subject without the added pressure of a written test. While working with kids on the traffic safety merit badge I gave them the opportunity to take a mock drivers license test but this was voluntary and had nothing to do with earning the merit badge, although most wanted to so they could see what the test was like before getting their license.

Thank you for your long time service and for posting numerous times expressing your opinion; and having numerous replies. That does not change the fact that these decisions are the responsibility of the local executive board, and not an organization. In reality, as a result of current affairs, it's up to each council to sink or swim without the hope of a life line. I would also remind you that many council properties have a provision wherein if there is ever a change in ownership the property will revert to the previous owner or their descendants. Thank you for serving as a Scoutmaster as well as all of the other positions over the past 30 years.

By camp operations I guess you're talking about long term camping. A long term camp must pay for itself. If the camping program can't pay for itself then long term camping is not an option. That does make it a little harder for unit leaders to get their kids to summer camp but it really isn't hard to find someplace to go. That doesn't mean that every camp that doesnt host a summer camp should be sold or given away. As long as a particular property is not losing money, leave it alone and have it available for council and unit events. The money comes from FOS, local patrons and donors, and camp usage fees. Again, this all comes under the purview of the local council executive board.

OK, one more time, the BSA does NOT own the individual councils. Each council has their own executive board which includes a finance chairman and a properties chairman. The BSA is not responsible for the infrastructure of the locally owned council camps. That is the responsibility of the local council executive boards. Not "National" , not the regions or the areas, and certenly not neighboring councils. Selling, closing, transferring, or other uses is the responsibility of the local executive board. What happens as a result of court orders concerning the bankruptcy remains to be seen, but otherwise the local executive boards make these decisions.

These are the same issues that I've mentioned. What busniss is it of the BSA weather our camp has a commercial kitchen and one flush crapper for every how many campers? If it meets the needs of our local units they should keep their hands out of it and there is no need for a national committee to make up useless rules. These are the same people who try and tell units that they can only camp in certain places. I dont think that those individuals are any smarter, better educated, or more concerned about where the kids can camp then the unit leaders and parents of those kids.

The councils should take care of council busuness including what is done with their camps and property. There are already numerous variations in Eagle Scout requirements depending on the needs of the individual, that's a fact, wether believed or not. Anybody above the local council seem to be more interested in their positions and have forgotten about the kids and what they want to do. We gont need regional committees to tell Scout Leaders how to be Scout Leaders, and we dont need national enforcement people telling Scout Leaders that they need to comply with what the national committee said. That's how things worked and the whole thing has crashed down around the members. It's real simple, when an organization that had a certain system and completly disregarded their own system, the organization failed.

1. At this point I think that professionals above the council level have become damage control specialists, rule enforcement specialists, political correctness barristers, and money collectors. Anyone, professional or volunteer, outside of the individual councils dont have much to do with the success of the individual unit. If the resources expended to support the BSA had been used by councils and districts to assist the individual unit we wouldn't be in the shape we are in. Jeeeees, how many times does Woodbadge have to be rewritten? How many different ways can training be revamped and presented? How many times does a national committee have to revamp the OA policy on Indian affairs? 2. In my opinion the Scouting Professionals at the council level should raise the funds needed to sustain their council and support and maintain their local units. There is a need to have a small group of professionals to take care of logistics and nationally owned property. And, contrary to popular belief, there is nothing found at our high adventure bases that can't be found elsewhere and in many cases, with a lower cost. For many years Philmont was the place to go, and that was when there were a lot more Scouts.

I think that is curious that BSA Scouters often quote Baden-Powell in remarks concerning BSA. There are many references made about a letter that BP wrote to the Scouts, especially during Woodbadge courses. I often wonder why the other letters written by BP are excluded. In the book Two Lives of a Hero there are a couple of other letters. One makes reference about not letting the Scout leaders becoming a corps of professionals because it will diminish the fact that Scout leaders are civic minded individuals who are concerned about the youth in their communities. Hmmmm.......let's not talk about that. If we reduce or alleviate those high paying positions councils won't have to pay fees and perhaps the membership fees can be reduced to an affordable level. The Summit is a beautiful place but going there is very expensive and cost prohibitive. It sure is an opulent jamboree site but it is not cost effective. Keep it, sell it, loose it to the bankruptcy, but quit charging the kids money to support a place that they may never get to see.

Nearly everything is automated anyway. YPT, advancement, training, and rechartering are all automated. I sometimes think that those positions that have "region, area, or national" are no more but honorariums and are given out just to stroke individual egos. What do these people do to positively support individual units? How is someone from Connecticut going to tell people in Georgia how to conduct the Scouting program? These are the ones who like to say "you can't do that" or "that is not proper uniforming" and expect you to take their word for it. I think that those who are "above the council level" should be reminded that the council is autonomous; as far as fun, enjoyable, or adventurous, those words aren't even in the BSA mission statement. Let's get the whole idea of having fun back into Scouting. I have never, ever, in no way heard a kid say, "the reason I joined scouting is to memorize, study, sit in a classroom like meeting, or to learn life's lessons. Every last one of them join up to get outside and have fun.

There are a lot of theories and ideas being tossed around. When the BSA announced the bankruptcy they clearly stated that they national organization did not own the individual councils and that they were administered by their own bord of directors. That statement tells me that the BSA owned 4 campgrounds, an office, and a brand. Issues concerning merging or combining councils are the responsibility of those local boards. Units should be responsible for their own business with the help of their local council. I see little need for monitors or policy enforcement professionals or any of the other committees that pass regulations and directives that affect councils that they dont own. BSA at the national level should take care of their property and supplying the units with what they need and leave everything else to the units. Councils can supply administrative support, be the direct link to the supply division and coordinate occasional council events. All of the beurocratic b&%* s&%@ that really doesnt have anything to do with unit activities can be deleated and Scout Leaders can focus on the program and worry less about all of the "must do...must do not...illegal patch....knife blade sizes...." and focus on the kids and just having fun. I think this is a great oppertunity to return Scouting to the community and remove the decisions of national committees from being the final decision makers on all things scouting. I often wonder what people on these committees know about providing the Scouting program to communities, cities, and states where they have never been.

When the bankruptcy was announced it was clearly reported that the BSA does not own the individual councils and that each one has their own board of directors. Rather then make blanket statements about merging ao combining councils, we should those issues to the councils and their respective boards? This is a great oppertunity to return Scouting to the local communities. The national organization should deal with their property issues and supply. Other then that, just let the units deal with their own business, supported by the local council......period.

Sorry for your loss, God bless.

Or council camps will become a vital part for rebuilding. Many people can't afford $1000.00 for a high adventure trip or national event. I can see the local camps being used by units in order to keep up the outdoor aspect of Scouting. I can see troops using these properties to conduct their own summer programs. I can see individual council's using volunteers exclusively for staffing camps with the help of the local rangers. And, I can see units being more autonomous and responsible for their own administration. I guess we'll see.

There is a lot of great discussion going on. I have always thought that our professionals should focus more on sustaining existing units instead of trying to create additional units that are likely to struggle or even fail. I also think that scouting has become very corporate and in order to be considered successful every level in every program is required to achieve a numerical level that really has no bearing on anything. The focuse has shifted from helping young people with positive development to making sure that the numbers are good. Also, just because a council is struggling does not mean that the leadership is incompetent, it just means that they are having trouble in one area or another. Perhaps local donors dont agree with direction the BSA is going and have decided not to give or to contribute directly to the unit. Perhaps there just aren't enough people volunteering for whatever reason. Everything is theoretical because you can't tell people what they need to do, where to give their money, or what is good for their children. It seems to me that the areas within scouting has become more of a regulatory and enforcement entity and less of a support system. Strong units are going to continue to be strong even if we combine councils, do away with areas and sections and greatly reduce the national level professional positions. Struggling units will continue to struggle and some will fail. Professional scouters really have little influence on the success or lack thereof of individual units. It will always take a few parents or adults that are willing to give their time, effort, and often times their money to make a unit successful. Take those dedicated adults out of the picture and even the best units will collapse. And after all, the unit providing the scouting program to young people is the foundation of this whole thing. I don't know, but I would be willing to guess, that if the section, region, and national level of scouting completly disappeared the units would still be there with their trips and adventures with the help of local council service centers and camp rangers. This is just my take on things and it will be interesting to see how close I am when this whole debacle comes to an end.

I know that I have a very conservative and traditional point of view. I am thankful for this forum that allows conversation between individuals who have a passion for Scouting and are aware of the positive influence that Scouting provides. I guess if I could could go back in time, Scouting would be as it was when I was a Scout. But I also know that the world is constantly changing and the old ways must evolve and keep pace with those changes. I was recently questioned by a young lady about my opinion concerning girls becoming Eagle Scouts. I told her that my personal opinion really doesnt matter because as long as I am a part of Scouting it is my responsibility to support, encourage, and assist our young members in reaching the goals that they set. I choose to remain a part of the BSA and gladly accept that responsiblity. As an OA Lodge Advisor I am looking forward to the time that our lodge is able to welcome young ladies into our order. I was also the Advisor of an Explorer Post where I served for 20 years. I noticed that young ladies were dedicated members and it was common for them to rise to leadership positions. I have also stated that when the girls get into the. OA they are likely going to take over. I am concerned about the current state of affairs of the BSA and can't even guess where we are heading or what will happen next. The only thing I know is that our OA Lodge will continue and the Venture Crew in which I am involved will recharter and deliver a quality and exciting program for the youth of our community. I have no doubt that the next two years are going to difficult and challenging but as far as I'm concerned, it's worth the fight. I imagine that most of us feel the same. God bless and Scout On!!!

Yea, there was a survey but if you recall I said members. By that I ment regular members who signed up to be BOY SCOUTS. Some adults, not all were asked to give an opinion. I heard a lot of "this group loves it or that group loves it" but I never heard one youth member say that they love those ideas. It seems like the old catch phrase "it's all for the boys" excludes the views of the group of people who it was all supposed to be for. It would also appear that the drastic changes made at the national level didn't work out very well. I know that a lot of people will disagree, but the proof is in the outcome.

Major league baseball is neither a club or private. There is no application to be submitted and there is no membership fee. You can not compare apples and oranges. If I apply for membership in a group that has certain rules an I pay a fee to belong to that club, and my application is accepted does in no way guarantee the membership to another who does not want to follow the dictates of that club. That Private Club has the absolute authority to deny membership to anyone who refuses to follow the club rules. I think that is is the perogative of anyone to socalize and associate with those who adhere to the same interests and values that I have and not to associate with those who do not. Just because an individual wants to be part of that group does not overshadow that.

Another issue for rebuilding the Scouting program is the cost. The powers that be or were, doubled the registration fee. That alone made Scouting cost prohibitive for some of the guys. Now with businesses closing, the added expense of having the kids out of school for an indefinite period (extra food, higher utility Bill's, child care...) individuals being out of work, many just won't be able to afford the Scouts. What a challenge we all face. It may revert to the days when a couple of tarps, a tent or two, and some blankets, and a friendly farmer's field make up a Scout trip.

I agree to a point. I know of no survey, questionnaire, or petition that was distributed to the members asking for these changes. The changes were initiated by individuals who were not members and wanted to be part of a club that did not follow their rules. If I belong to a club that only drinks grape juice and a non-member who only drinks orange juice demands admittance, the club rules shouldn't change just to accommodate the orange juice drinker. It's my choice to associate with the grape juice drinkers and because it is a private club, I shouldn't be forced to accept orange juice. It's just that simple.