InquisitiveScouter

Different experience here... 1. The new registration regime actually caused more work to ensure that Scouts remained registered, and could, therefore, enjoy the benefits of "membership". (I'll elaborate on that in a bit.) Because the transaction now goes directly from family to BSA, the burden of action was shifted to the family. Most families are not fully on top of all the minutiae they have to manage in their lives, and the required action of reading the emails from National (which probably went to spam) and figuring out what to do to register their Scout (admittedly a very low priority), especially around the holiday period, meant that about one third of our Scouts did not have a current paid registration going into recharter. 2. Once the recharter process started, our Troop became "locked" somehow, and no adults or Scouts who delayed could register in the unit until the recharter was complete. Those who attempted got some sort of "Unit Not Valid" message, and the system would not process their registration or payment. Now you have doubled or tripled the amount of work a family / Troop has to do to get on top of this, as they have to monitor the recharter, then notify parents to try again, and then do the payment process again. 3. Even though there is a "grace" period for individual registrations, until the unit recharter went through, adults in our unit/district/council could not manipulate calendars or input advancements (we'd get a message for a Scout that said they did not have a valid membership.) After a huge outcry to District Commissioners/District Staffs/Registrar/Council Staff (folks at our January Roundtable were quite testy), the council office pulled folks from other duties to assist Registrar in tasks needed to complete the effort. Still not done for all units due to adult application issues (for position changes to make sure a unit has the required leadership to recharter), but the majority in our District are now done. Finally, consider the amount of money being wasted on this process... every family has to pay something like a 3% convenience fee to do this online with a credit card. For those who went to the Scout office and paid in person, because this was an option presented to avoid the card fee, their registrations were held up until staff went through that paperwork in office. (Of course, the checks were cashed right away, but renewals were delayed... optics on that not so good either.) I'm with @Tron... these two actions should be de-coupled by some significant space in the calendar. My take: Units should be prompted to renew FIRST. Once a unit renewal is complete for the next year, the demand signal for individuals to renew their memberships in that unit should go out... There are a lot more moving parts to this, I'm sure...

If they do, in fact, roll this back, I will be impressed that National will have taken prudent steps after recognizing this blunder. Now let's see how long it takes to make the change.

Thanks That was the substance of the SM's reply.

Sometimes I think we are just not getting through... I am an ASM working with a Patrol of younger Scouts. Last night, an older Scout interrupted this Patrol's Meeting to try to take a younger Scout out to work on his Life requirement #6, using EDGE to teach a skill. The younger Scout is the planner for the Patrol's next camping trip, and he was working out plans with his Patrol mates. The younger Scout was obviously frustrated by this demand (from the look on his face) and turned to me for guidance. I dismissed the older Scout and told him this was time for the Patrol Meeting, and that the younger Scout was to stay and finish his planning with his Patrol Mates. This morning, the parent of the older Scout sends a scathing missive to the Scoutmaster, outlining how his son has been trying to complete this requirement for months now, and is not getting any support from the Troop. (This is factually incorrect, and the SM handled the email response to the parent perfectly.) The parent made brief mention of the Patrol Meeting scenario last night, and made a comment in reference to it that makes me believe we are just not getting through... "I understand the importance of patrol meetings, but don’t get why they would take precedence over completing rank requirements." This, followed by threats to leave the Troop if the Troop does not immediately make and implement a plan to help their Scout finish the requirement. Important to note also, this older Scout rarely comes to meetings, and has not been on a Troop outing since Oct 2024. He did not make arrangements with anyone to try to work on the requirement during this meeting... smh https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ?si=ljwnDk_wERNKzhz4

Recommend you choose tongue twisters that do not twist into profanity Example of a naughty: "I saw Susie sitting in a shoeshine shop" Example of a nice: "Rubber baby buggy bumpers" --------------- Preview the jokes... make sure they are Scout appropriate. I know some ditties on dirty underwear that I learned in Scouts as a kid Not to be told in polite company...

There is a mechanism already in place... 1. Scout tells parents they would like a new Scoutmaster, and articulates GOOD reasons for it. Parents tell committee: committee evaluates and takes action, with advice and consent of COR. 2. Scout tells Boards of Review they think they'd like a new Scoutmaster, and articulates GOOD reasons for it. (BoR is made of Committee Members and parents.) Committee evaluates and takes action, with advice and consent of COR. Although I understand the sentiment, youth must not make the decision of who should be Scoutmaster. (Inmates running the asylum and all ) To implement this would mean an abdication of responsibility by COR and Troop Committee. Unfortunately, reality is often that the Scoutmaster is simply the person with a pulse who said they'd do the job. In 45+ years of Scouting, I've never seen a unit with a decent succession plan. Still looking for that unicorn. (Yes, I have failed to get this accomplished in many a unit. If I was allowed to be the benevolent dictator, things would have been different.)

Your council is "supposed" to have an Enterprise Risk Management Committee that should review this... Good Luck, https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/healthsafety/pdf/680-026.pdf

At the camp I grew up in (1980's, LOL!), our Camp Director got fed up with shenanigans, and went to a system where, when units arrived in the main parking lot, they loaded all their gear into a camp trailer, and Ranger or Asst Ranger drove it to their campsite, with staff members assisting on loading and unloading. The issues then were too many cars in camp, drivers far exceeding safe speeds on camp roads with campers running everywhere, and people not getting their vehicles out expeditiously. So, about my third year on staff, the Camp Director instituted that procedure, and it worked well for the next five years I was on that staff...

Go to a different camp Easy, peasy

For us, anyone driving camp (council) vehicles must be listed on the council's insurance policy. Units move and park their own trailers, and those vehicle operators assume liability risk on their own insurance policies per the G2SS, Transportation section: https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss11/ 13. All vehicles must be covered by automobile liability insurance with limits that meet or exceed the requirements of the state in which the vehicle is licensed. It is recommended, however, that coverage limits are at least $100,000 combined single limit. Any vehicle designed to carry ten or more passengers should have limit of $1,000,000. For insurance information refer to the Insurance section in the Guide to Safe Scouting. 14. When towing the tow vehicle driver has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to operate the vehicle with the attached unit. That your council is having "...adult staff using their personal vehicles tow all troop trailers..." is troubling. Council cannot require any staff member to use their personal vehicle for camp requirements, without remuneration and ensuring adequate liability coverage. If they make this some sort of condition for employment, or otherwise require employees (which camp staff are) to use their personal vehicles in this way, they are asking for trouble. Good luck convincing them

I am an advocate for returning to no age limit on earning ranks. (BSA instituted the age limit in 1952.) Want a good chance to see a return of Scouting skills? Allow adults to earn their ranks as well... Want to have a good chance at restoring some integrity into the Merit Badge program? Allow adults to earn them as well... Removing age limit would also pave the way for bringing back testing for a Board of Review, thus reinforcing Scout skills. Adults would be in a "Rover"-type patrol... Add some additional awards for them for mentoring and teaching youth under 18...

Yes, the 31 December 2025 number of "Total Unit-Based" is 877,403. If you included Learning for Life numbers, then the total youth served by Scouting America programs on 31 Dec 2025 was 907,950. The 31 Dec 2024 Unit-Based number was 956,541. So, that one year period change was a loss of 79,138 Scouts, or an 8.27% loss from the Dec 2024 numbers. Current number reporting today (Unit-Based only) is 837,145. There have been numerous problems with online registrations, particularly if families delayed... If the unit charter lapsed, families were blocked from renewing registrations. I imagine we will be seeing a cleanup of that boondoggle through March. So, my gut tells me the 837K number is low. If accurate, it would mean a loss 40K Scouts since end of 2025. (Another loss of 4.56% of membership.)

It is always best to go to the source: https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2026-NCAP-Standards-v2.pdf Standard number SA-001, pages 25 - 29.

Sorry, I put this in the wrong thread... ------------------------------------ The biggest unadvertised cost of Scouting is the amount of volunteer adult support it takes to make a good unit level program happen. No "pitch" that I have ever heard (outside of our unit) tells parents that "We welcome your kids, but you have to come along, too, to help us put on the program." When you do get them to agree to help, then explain that "help" means a variety of getting trained, learning Scout skills so that you know what 'right' looks like, being a merit badge counselor, serving on the committee to help with budget, managing adult training, onboarding, advancement, uniforming, equipment, fundraising, etc, etc, etc, Oh, and we need drivers and adults for camping, too. Once they learn those needs, many are out. They want to take their kids to programs where they can dump and run, or show up occasionally with a tray of orange slices and some juice boxes. Once upon a time, when I served Uncle Sam, our mantra in the Air Force was "We recruit Airmen, but we retain families." And we did PR, ads, benefits, and programs to support that. Attract individuals, but make our environment such that, as they start a family while serving (which many do), we make it comfortable for their family to have the service member stay in. (This mindset varies across the services, though many of the family programs and benefits are duplicated in all services. Health care, base housing, commissary and exchange, MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation], etc. ) Scouting should be, "We recruit families, but we retain the Scout." Get the family on board, and give them benefits for their Scouts (a program of adventure) , and the youth will stay, keeping the parents involved.

The biggest unadvertised cost of Scouting is the amount of volunteer adult support it takes to make a good unit level program happen. No "pitch" that I have ever heard (outside of our unit) tells parents that "We welcome your kids, but you have to come along, too, to help us put on the program." When you do get them to agree to help, then explain that "help" means a variety of getting trained, learning Scout skills so that you know what 'right' looks like, being a merit badge counselor, serving on the committee to help with budget, managing adult training, onboarding, advancement, uniforming, equipment, fundraising, etc, etc, etc, Oh, and we need drivers and adults for camping, too. Once they learn those needs, many are out. They want to take their kids to programs where they can dump and run, or show up occasionally with a tray of orange slices and some juice boxes. Once upon a time, when I served Uncle Sam, our mantra in the Air Force was "We recruit Airmen, but we retain families." And we did PR, ads, benefits, and programs to support that. Attract individuals, but make our environment such that, as they start a family while serving (which many do), we make it comfortable for their family to have the service member stay in. (This mindset varies across the services, though many of the family programs and benefits are duplicated in all services. Health care, base housing, commissary and exchange, MWR [morale, welfare, and recreation], etc. ) Scouting should be, "We recruit families, but we retain the Scout." Get the family on board, and give them benefits for their Scouts (a program of adventure) , and the youth will stay, keeping the parents involved.