InquisitiveScouter

Some new norm, some freak anomaly...

1.  Still should be youth ( <21 y.o.) run election from Lodge... does not have to be your chapter.  In fact, if you had youth in your Troop who were OA members, and were trained in running elections, your Troop could do its own election.  Has to be "blessed" by your lodge...  Adults (>= 21)  should in no way be running the election.  This happened with our election last year, as no youth were available the night of our Troop election.  I thought we should reschedule, but SM and Lodge wanted it done... smh.

2.  Camping nights are still required.  Election team does not check this... this is done by SM, who must certify eligible from the unit.  Criteria here,  https://oa-scouting.org/about/membership  That said, I have seen unit leaders certify camping nights when they should not have....

3.  Not sure what you mean here, "The only adult, 21+,  was voted on and not nominated."  Adults are nominated by the Troop committee...  was this your process??

4.  Yes, everyone "eligible" can get elected now.  All you need is 50% of those present to vote for you.  Say your unit has 5 eligible and 20 Scouts present.  Each ballot can list five names.  If all five candidates receive a minimum of 10 votes, they are in.  smh

I take a slightly different tack that @skeptic, and this has been a heated topic in the past....  Here are my thoughts and beliefs, supported by mountains of literature on and from OA... many take a different thought-path, though...

A.  As @skeptic says,  "It pretty much lost any real credibility, in my view, when it stopped putting limits on how many could be elected in a unit..."  Agree.  OA is no longer really an "honor society" within Scouting, if everyone can get in.  That said, we did have a Scout who did not really do anything for the Troop and his fellow Scouts other than show up... his buddies did not select him for OA membership.  But that is the only one I have seen in the time since the election rules changed.

B.  Order of the Arrow recognition is unit-level.  There is no written guidance on what "approval of the Scoutmaster" means, other than the written requirements for membership linked above.  For any unit leader to inject their personal observations into it makes the process capricious and one showing favoritism. However, if a Scout, who is First Class or above, is not living up to the Scout Oath and Law, the the unit leader should tell the Scout specifically before the OA election, give corrective behavior and goals, and sign off a Scoutmaster Conference for the next rank.  (If Scout continues poor behavior, then should be brought up with Troop Committee and let the Scout know he will not be signed off on STAR (or LIFE) requirement #2 "...demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law." )  If the Scoutmaster deems a Scout is eligible, his name should be on the ballot, WHETHER THE SCOUT INTENDS TO COMPLETE THE ORDEAL OR NOT.   Simply being elected to the Order of the Arrow is the honor the unit gets to bestow upon their fellow Scouts.  It is not about future service to the Lodge... that is what the Brotherhood recognition is for...  "An Arrowman's first duty is to his unit."  https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/24-413.pdf    https://oa-scouting.org/article/thoughts-arrowmans-primary-duty

C.  When I talk with Scouts about potential OA membership, I tell them there is NO OBLIGATION to serve the Lodge after undertaking the Ordeal.  There is an obligation to continue serving the unit.  "...the ones who chose you need you."    There are TWO different "statuses"... one is membership in the Order of the Arrow (for which you wear your sash); the second is membership in the Lodge (for which you wear your flap.  Once you pass the Ordeal (without flinching  ) you are ALWAYS A MEMBER OF THE ORDER OF THE ARROW.  However, once you pass the Ordeal, you must pay your annual dues to be a member of the local lodge.

In the WImachtendienk,

Amangiechsin

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...

47 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

WOW, who could have predicted rolling registration would be a "Charley Foxtrot?"  🤔

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

2 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Hello Fellow Scouters: Due mostly to my own lax planning, I'm pulling together plans for tomorrow's Bear den meeting. We'll be working on the "Roaring Laughter" elective adventure. Thankfully, it doesn't look like this one will require too much planning and it's a great activity for an indoor den meeting in the middle of winter.

Requirements are as follows:

1. Think about what makes you laugh. Discuss these with your den or family.
2. Practice reading tongue twisters.
3. Play charades with your den or family.
4. Have a "funniest joke contest" with your den or family.
5. Practice "run-ons" with your den or family.

Has anyone successfully covered this elective with their den?

Any tips for making this a memorable den meeting?

- BwC

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...

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

That's probably a less desirable outcome than having a mechanism whereby the Scouts can decide they want a new adult leader.  

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.)

2 hours ago, yknot said:

It's a great idea and good on you for trying but liability is the issue. They are in no authoritative position to confer any kind of credentialling and if an incident occurs it opens a can of worms that could only lead to enhanced liability. It's easier to just say park it and drive in. 

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

2 minutes ago, Tron said:

Yes, staff driving a units vehicle or towing a units trailer is not normal. I can't say if it is unique to Beaumont; however, I have been to many scout camps and never experienced or heard of this before. 

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...

27 minutes ago, E V Augustine said:

There is another layer.  We rent a trailer from a national truck and trailer rental company.  The parties to the rental agreement are well defined and documented in the contract.  A third party using their vehicle to tow the rented trailer puts me in material breach of the contract and voids the purchased damage waiver and contents insurance.  In the event of damage or worse I would be on the hook and then have to pursue council and the inept driver.  That would be after I had to explain why I breached the contract.

Oddly enough the solution is let the units bring in and park their trailers in identified spots in the campsites.  I know they refuse to consider that.

 

Go to a different camp   Easy, peasy

30 minutes ago, E V Augustine said:

Beaumont Scout Reservation has instituted a policy where summer camp adult staff using their personal vehicles tow all troop trailers from a parking lot near the public road to the respective troop's campsite.  The towed distances are about a mile over gravel roads.  Council's stated goal is to control trailer placement at the campsites.  They move 15 to 20 trailers a week during the season.  On leaving camp at week's end the troops tow their own trailers out of camp. 

I been told that councils would or should have some form of insurance covering damage to the trailer, its contents, and personal injury occurring while in the control of camp staff in the event of negligence.  It seems an errant staffer's claim, "I did the best I could" would be a perfect defense.

I am interested in hearing if other summer camps have the same policy, not about designated parking but operation of the trailer by camp staff.

 

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

25 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As for Scouts, the emphasis is on advancement, not fun, adventure, and growth.

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.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Going from memory.  The membership reports could compare by date, or month, as well as tracking for the June 30th, or December 31st goals.

The 01 Jan 2026 number is real time... today's number.

The Jan 2025 number looks to be the close out number for 31 Jan 2025.

Another facet of this that may arise under the new registration system... 

We have several units who cannot be renewed because the leaders have not renewed. Yet, those units have Scouts who renewed online for 2026.

I hope the number will be small, but for a time, we are going to have Scouts with current registrations whose units have shuttered.

They'll need to find new homes.

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

Did anyone see this from Mr. Krone?

 

Membership: Recruitment and Retention

In 2025, we focused on growth by hiring an executive vice president of membership and leveraging Lilly Endowment funds to hire unit growth executives for councils. We also expanded our marketing efforts, driving a record number of visitors to BeAScout.org. I am pleased to report that by the close of 2025, we will have recruited almost 260,000 new members. But membership is more than recruiting — it is also retention. In the coming year, we will intensify our focus on retention and on delivering a more meaningful experience for all members.

 

If we recruited 260,00 new members but the overall membership through November is around 900,000 where did 260,000 that were on the rolls the end of 2024 go?

The system numbers I see tell a different story.

As promised, 01 Jan numbers, pulled moments ago...

Total Current Youth: 855,685 (Jan 2026)  a 14.22% drop from Jan 2025

Same Month Last Year: 997,529 (Jan 2025)

Last Year End:  907,949 (This is the 31 Dec 2025 number in the system.)

Dec 2024 End of Year number was: 986,520

So, Dec 2025 year end compared to Dec 2024,  is a 7.96% drop, year to year.

These numbers include Learning for Life...about 27K on the books now.

And, um, how is hiring an Executive VP of Membership (LOL) going stop the losses?  Or hiring "unit growth executives" at the council level???

Explain it to me like I was a ten year old (who might be looking to join Scouting), please

6 minutes ago, Tron said:

 

I think this is the issue. Due to so many factors we have this atmosphere of permissiveness. Sometimes it's not even permissiveness; it's just burnout. How many of us have reported something because we had valid concern or outright knew someone was willfully violating SYT/YPT or the GTSS and were ignored by people at the district or council level. 

Hey man, we only get to work when things become a Crisis.  So, until it becomes a crisis, we ain't doin' nothin'.

If you follow our philosophy, then all you have to do is Crisis Management.  And when it becomes a Crisis, if you don't want to deal with it, then dump it on someone else and find a new position elsewhere.

We just pray there are plenty of fat paychecks in the bank before the Crisis rears its ugly head, and we have to leave. (not having done the Crisis Management we have said we would do 😜 )

Now, pay us your fees and go have fun!! 

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Ebay, or Scouting memorabilia shop. Good luck finding one. It may take you 30 years to find one you can afford.

@mylo_cat and others, what would a fair price be, now that this is a collector's item?  My son is home from college, and may part with his.  He is not as "attached" to Scouting as I am.

On 12/12/2025 at 1:39 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

 

Here is what I can see...

Post here if you want your specific council numbers, or I can see by state, also.  Also, if you want to know by program, sing out...

As of today, National level, all programs including Learning for Life, total youth registered is 877, 225.  Same month last year number was 986,520.

So, overall, drop is 109,295 Scouts, or 11.08% loss, from Dec 2024 to Dec 2025  I'll check these numbers again after 31 Dec, when many current registrations expire, and again after mid-March, when the 60 day grace period expires.

We are losing about 10% in our Troop, due to those turning 18.  Hope to gain those back during crossover season.

Please remind me

And the aggregate of all councils today is 881,444.  A change of +4219 nationally... just in 5 days.  Registrars are busy at work 😜

2 hours ago, Tron said:

Last night I saw a dashboard and it had way different numbers. My understanding after asking some questions is that the numbers reported by councils and national in their annual reports Year-over-Year are not "current registered youth" and have not been "current registered youth". So we might have 877k right now but that number is not directly correlated to the membership numbers reported by national at the NAM. The number to compare against nationals year end number that they reported at the NAM is a "count of uniquely served youth in the previous calendar year" which currently stands at 1.2 million according to the dashboard I was shown last night. I am not sure if every council is doing the same thing or not; I suspect based on numbers I have seen that confused me in the past that my council is doing this as well. 

I'd be interested to know the source...

I pulled raw numbers from the Council Membership Tool on my.scouting.  See attached for today's report on 092, Atlanta Area Council, which @Jameson76 had asked for.

So, over five days, the current numbers changed to 15341, up from 15315 last Friday (+26).  You'll notice the Dec 2024 number does not change (nor should it).

The number this will be on 31 Dec, as @Eagle94-A1 points out, will be the one to watch for to give the most accurate "real time" number for comparison. Although, I suppose if a Registrar has a backlog of applications or renewals, they can tweak the Dec 2025 numbers into Jan 2026.

On 12/12/2025 at 4:55 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Dec 2024: 17277  Dec 2025: 15315   -11.36%

Another pet peeve...

Scout camps that are not designed around the Patrol Method.

What we have mostly these days is a Troop-amoeba campsite with individual Scouts doing their own individually tailored programs during the day.  And, they are being given merit badges without having done the work. (Yes, there are exceptions, but this is the general rule, in my observation...)

The hidden message is that advancement is the primary purpose of Scouting.

If the flagships of the councils, the council-run Summer Camps, are not pushing the Patrol Method, then they work at cross-purposes with units who are trying to do it that way.