InquisitiveScouter
-
Content Count
2353 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
97
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by InquisitiveScouter
-
-
4 hours ago, ramanous said:
So I think one suggestion you're making is to let the patrols self-organize naturally as much as possible?
We actually have the opposite problem than you, which is our SM refuses to use the patrol method in favor of the SPL running the troop directly (the PLs have no responsibility.) He's been a scouter for a long time, including woodbadge, so its confounding to me (I asked him privately to explain it; that was big mistake.) I'm speculating the Key3 want the troop to be an Eagle Scout factory so they see PL, SPL, etc as just requirements for rank advancement.
Sounds like you have a continuation of the WEBELOS program.
Leave immediately.
DM me with your state and city... if you are near, come visit to see what Patrol Method and Scout-led looks like.
Fair warning: it is messy, and adults can do it much better... but then it would not be Scouting; it would be WEBELOS again.
-
Parents and Committee members should never do something that Scouts can do for themselves.
The Scouts choose their program and capture it on the calendar in their "Annual Planning Conference". Do not let the name fool you. We have at least two of these each year... one per Senior Patrol Leader tenure. And they are challenged to look out at least twelve months, so that we always have six months of program on tap.
Once the Scouts choose their program, it goes to the Committee for "approval." It is not really so much an "approval" as it is a "yes, we can support this, with the adult constraints we have..."
For example, the Troop leaders set the constraint of one camping trip per month, and one day-long event (hike, bike, service project, etc.) per month, one long term Summer Camp per year, and one long term "high adventure" per year. That is what we can support with adult supervision requirements levied upon us by National. Sometimes pop-up events are presented, like an additional service project, and we try to meet those. Occasionally, (once or twice per year?) we have to cancel an event because we cannot field the adult supervision required.
The committee then uses this calendar of activities to determine the unit budget, and, therefore, the targets for unit dues and fundraising for the year...
At each monthly Committee meeting, the SM and one or two ASMs present a "State of the Troop" and present any issues that have come up.
The committee goes over the upcoming events and asks if there are any shortfalls in supporting the Troop program.
They discuss the status of spending against the budget; adult succession and training; status of equipment and what purchases need to be made to support our Scouts; determine unit policies; discuss the health of the Troop and any disciplinary issues that have come up, to make sure the leaders are handling things in line with parents' wishes. Etc, etc, etc...
The committee and parents conduct Boards of Review for all ranks (including Eagle Scout); they hear proposals for Eagle Scout projects
They discuss recharter and JTE progress.
And much more. There is always a full agenda.
Does that help?
-
1
-
-
We had a discussion along these lines some time ago in our unit committee/parent meeting...
The parents of our Scouts support having a girl Troop, but there are not enough to sign up to create one (youth and adults alike.)
If we were allowed to have a girl patrol, we would, just from the siblings who would like to be in the program.. And just like all of our other activities, we would have that patrol grow separately.
Patrols make up a Troop... a Troop is not made of patrols. IMO, this mindset is critical to understanding the Patrol method, and how girls patrols would function in a female/male Troop.
Our unit parents do not support integrated patrols. (Some [like me, who had a Venturer daughter earn her Summit], do not mind them after a certain age, but the majority of parents differ.) (I am the parent of an inaugural class Eagle daughter, and an Eagle son, both adults now.)
And, the parents do not support transgender or <insert your acronym here> Scouts becoming part of the Troop. We do not discuss issues of religion and sexuality within the unit, but always defer those questions to parents. (I tell parents I am happy to answer a Scout's questions on those subjects as long as we have the parent-leader discussion first. This has worked well with Scouts with single mothers, for example...)
The culture we have is this: we tolerate your beliefs, and support your right to believe and behave differently, but we do not accept them in our unit.
Just as we do not allow Scouts who harm themselves and others physically or verbally, we will not allow those who, even unintentionally, harm others by pushing agendas which do not fit with the values of the parents.
Our unit is happy and strong... and our young men have strong positive well-adjusted role models (male and female) to learn from. Until the parents and Committee of our unit change their minds on this, we will continue down our current path.
Yes, we have turned away Scouts with gender dysphoria and those who oversexualize their identity and language. They need help that we cannot give them.
Yes, we have turned away Scouts and families who do not fit with the values our families have. We refer them to other units who operate differently from us.
Scouting may be for everyone, but local unit Committees and CO's determine who they will accept as members.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:
As many local Councils have in the past ten years, National needs to re-evaluate the financial viability of their assets and program delivery solutions.
Let questions be asked: Rebuild local camps? Can we afford Summit or will annual membership fees continue to rise to cover mortgage payments? Do we need a permanent, large Jamboree site? Have any Jamborees held there been self-sustaining financially? ...
Another $0.02,
Heretic!
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, skeptic said:
buying the West award
You have described this correctly. Thank you.
-
And how's that working out for us?
-
9 hours ago, skeptic said:
Patches that cover the entire pocket are just poor taste in my view, and the things called ghost patches make little sense to me. Similarly, I would prefer some restraint be reinstated for CSP designs so that they are a bit less glaring. Some are truly beautiful, but too many seem, again, over the top.
But, but, but... we can use these as FUNDRAISERS! 😜
Do you remember when your lodge and council had ONE flap and CSP?
smh
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, skeptic said:
Are you suggesting common sense enter into the game? 🤣
God forbid? 😜
-
2 hours ago, Eagledad said:
I think the choice for single-gender troops and patrols is the right approach.
Barry
I think the best approach would be to give the CO's options, and let them decide how they wish to structure their Scouting program...
Just like they already do with selection of adults, religious and character requirements, and whether they have a girl Troop under their umbrella.
There are many that would wish to stay with the single-gender approach.
There are many that would integrate.
-
3
-
-
On 3/18/2024 at 7:57 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:
Puerto Rican flags make sense for Puerto Rican scouts.
No, they do not. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States.
Just like a Texas Flag on a uniform does not make sense for Scouts from Texas.
-
36 minutes ago, skeptic said:
The issue is unique to our society and legal system. Most of the world recognizes that bad people are part of the larger society and precautions are warranted to take note. They are not paranoid that somehow it is being platted by every person around the corner or that does not fit the accepted stereotypes. In a way it too many people seeing shadows and believing the worst.
And not enough, or quick enough punishment of the offenders.
We are seeing the rate of our decline increase... coming to a neighborhood near you...
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, fred8033 said:
IMHO, if it's clean and neat, I'm happy.
This
-
8 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:
Technically...but that won't stop anyone, including myself.
A Scout is Obedient
..."He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks those rules and laws are unfair, he seeks to have them changed in an orderly way."
Is that who you are?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:
A Scout is thrifty. $19 versus $49. I would be hugely tempted.
Looks slightly different, but just minor. The biggest issue is it does not have the red stitched BSA on the shirt. Is that bad? IMHO, I bet I could find a mom with a sewing machine that can automatically add the emblem after the fact for cheap; or free within the unit.
Love the idea, but... trademark violation.
-
1 hour ago, DannyG said:
I am guilty of wearing knock-off pants. They cost less, look better and fit better.
The price mark-up is a lot less. Gotta fund those salaries!
That whole "A Scout is Thrifty" thing... nah, BSA doesn't mean it.
-
On 3/14/2024 at 3:38 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:
We disagree that that is an answer. The verbiage you cited specifically applies to den coordinated camping, on its face.
But since you are the guy who publishes it, would you care to edify us on the thought behind it, given the situation posed?
Here's a hypothetical to help view the policy gap more clearly:
Twin 11-year-old brothers arrive at our Troop. They are looking for a Troop to join.
Their parents asks if their twins may attend a camping trip before deciding on whether to commit to joining.
"Sure!" We say, as this is allowed under current policies, and they are covered by BSA insurance as outlined in the G2SS.
"Scouts and guests who are being encouraged to become registered Scouts and volunteers are automatically insured while in attendance at a scheduled activity."
https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/
1) We ask the parents for an AHMR A&B. We discuss any potential medical constraints... (required by BSA)
2) We get signed permission slips. (Not required by BSA, but by us...)
3) We have two leaders have a discussion on behavior expectations with the youth and parents.
4) The parents agree to pick up the youth from our event if they do not hold to those expectations.
We guide them through some gear recommendations, and get them plugged into patrols with their buddies.
Before they leave that meeting, the parents say, "We really hope this works out. Jimmy has not had a good experience in his Cub Scout pack. His brother Johnny never joined because of that. We really want them to be in a good unit that is a good fit."
Are you telling me we have to tell the parents Johnny can go, but Jimmy cannot, because Jimmy is registered as a Cub Scout?
Still waiting for a coherent answer to the post above...
Meanwhile, I asked this question at our last Roundtable, as one topic of discussion was recruiting and transition. This went up to council, and the word back through our District Commissioner from our SE (we have no DE) was that youth who meet the criteria for joining Scouts, BSA, may camp with a Troop, and they are covered by insurance if not registered. (and I have the email trail...)
Our Caesar has spoken. And common sense has prevailed.
In my opinion, the more nonsensical restrictions we (the BSA) impose on families, the less likely they are to join the movement. Rules are fine, when you can present a logical reason for the rule. The thinking and position that, "We have this rule, and we know it does not jive with other rules or common sense, but that is the rule!" really puts people off. I would submit that this BSA mindset is another straw on the camel's back for parents when deciding whether to join or continue in Scouting.
Kind of like the "Our kids are friends, but your Scout son (a neighbor) cannot come over to hang out or study with my Scout son because BSA says I have to have another adult leader present. Yes, I know these two 17 year-olds are taking on their AP Chemistry test this week, and they want to study together, but BSA rules are BSA rules!"
Um... no.
And also.... from G2SS FAQ, which is not "really" policy 😜
"All parents and caregivers should understand that our leaders are to abide by these safeguards. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities. There are careers that may require one-on-one contact with youth, however aside from those roles, volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities."
"MUST" um... no.
This nonsensical statement is overstepping, and balderdash, and parents laugh at BSA openly when they hear it. BSA policy does not nullify parental rights and authority to make decisions about the welfare of their children just because their child becomes a member of BSA.
Nonsensical policies also cause many leaders to adopt a "we'll just do it our way" mentality. And when they begin to ignore one or two confusing guidelines, the path becomes slippery and they ignore more and more and more...
This describes about half of the units I know of...
It also drives away older youth who are becoming more independent. Freedom comes with risk, and they crave both. Give them no freedom, and remove all risk (versus giving them tools and guidance to understand and manage risk), and you destroy the development of their independence.
And FAQ are no way to promulgate policy. If your policy is written so ambiguously as to require FAQ to explain it, then you need to re-write your policy.
The better statement in G2SS is this:
"In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners."
I often operate under that mindset. Like when my son and his neighbor buddy studied for their AP test together with just me at home, or when they camped in the back yard while my wife was visiting her parents, or when they went down to the creek to play together without an adult there, etc. etc. etc...
-
On 3/16/2024 at 1:02 PM, Eagle1993 said:
I just completed a scouting survey. It included standard questions and asked for recommendations. It has additional questions for Scoutmasters that dug into collecting feedback about how girls troops are run (are they really independent or integrated and if integrated how integrated are they). It then had questions about recommendations if BSA should consider coed Troops and if they were coed, how integrated should the integrated Troops be managed.
Hopefully this is really a survey to get input before decisions but I know that is not always the case. However, I can say that BSA must be at least considering changing how girls are integrated.
FWIW, I recommended allowing coed Troops but keeping girls patrols. I felt like that would open up scouting to more girls but still allow some space for coharts to bond.
Funny how we discuss these things here, and voila! National starts "testing the waters" on this...
-
14 minutes ago, Gossmaaf said:
I met with my wood badge mentor who has consulted with others (and I agree) that it’s better to keep scouting for these 6-12 scouts rather than worry about a unit being saved.
100%
15 minutes ago, Gossmaaf said:I believe my prime responsibility is to the existing scouts and the program more than recruiting, let growth happen because we are having fun not because of forced growth.
Also 100%
Commissioner has correct picture... it's about best opportunity for those Scouts. Let others worry about the other unit. They can work to either save it, or transfer their Scouts to you.
Be open and supportive to their coming over, but focus on your unit and Scouts.
My hunch is, their CM will bring them over.
-
1
-
-
I would say to anyone who is making a decision about Scouting to not pay attention to posts on a website that is not official. And that ALL Scouting is local. So check out your local Troop to see if it is a good fit.
I honestly do not believe anyone is so naïve as to think that way.
We can (and do) have any number of people here who are not even involved in Scouting, yet post their ideas in conversations about topics.
Just because you do not like people's opinions, or how they express them, or the way they pose an idea or question doesn't mean you are the hall monitor who has to intervene.
And you have incorrectly conflated way too much stuff here for me to pick it all apart.
Except one bit:
26 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:Nobody has managed to produce a shared of evidence that the BSA scout affinity groups came with the potential downside of excluding nonparticipants or that people not in the demographic of the affinity group being actually excluded.
I would say the OP provided evidence, through his experience, that these groups were detrimental to him, and made him feel excluded. The very fact that no affinity group marketing made him feel welcome to that group is his experiential evidence, is it not? And his expression that he knows his creating an affinity group for "...straight white folks..." would only create further division is evidence that these groups, and the way they are marketed has had a negative effect on him.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, swilliams said:
Thank you! That's sort of why I was asking. Our older scouts want to do an AT backpacking trip in two weeks. Delaware Water Gap to at least Camp NoBeBoSco but more likely to Crater Lake. 3.6 miles Friday evening to the Backpacker campsite. 9.1 the second day. 2.0 Sunday morning. Worried that might be too much for our Webelos who are crossing over tonight and have never backpacked. Younger son suggested making it "high adventure" and limiting it to scouts 14 and older.
I'm a little surprised younger son wants to go. My boys went to Philmont last summer. The scouts narrowly voted to do one of the hardest treks available: ended up being just over 100 miles, summiting both Tooth of Time and Baldy. Little time for program. Then the scouts who had voted for this one backed out of the trip, lol. When he came home, son said he was never backpacking again. Looks like he has the bug, though.
I have done that section of the AT!
This may not too much for WEBELOS who have never backpacked, if you limit their pack weight by having a good gear shakedown, and limit their weight to about 25% of their body weight. This means others may have to help carry gear.
Or, you could let them join you for just one night on the trail! Have them backpack up with you to the first campsite. In the morning, they pack up and go back down to trailhead. This means you'd need two more adults, but they could ferry your cars to Crater Lake, and save you that logistical pain on the first day.
There's a million ways to skin that cat.
And, are you using this tool with layers?
https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6298c848ba2a490588b7f6d25453e4e0
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:
I don't really understand why you take so much offense at some things I've said here
Ummm.... where did I say I was offended, or that you were an enemy?
Your posts have not offended, just... confused (to use your phrasing)
I often find myself reading tone and intent into these posts, and have to check those inclinations. Doing either pushes my own thoughts and biases onto the other person posting.
So, I ask a lot of questions to get at the heart of a matter for understanding. I do find people often take offense at the mere asking of questions. This I find puzzling. And it is why I often say if you look for offense, you will find it.
And on your discourse on civil discourse, I think advice given by another poster is valid: If you don't like it, you do not have to engage. I ignore lots of people here in that way 😜
-
4 minutes ago, SSScout said:
"MYYYY HAT, it has three corners...."
Drei Ecken hat mein Hut!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RichardB said:
No trap. Your question is asked and answered on it's merit. With a citation of the source of the answer by the guy who publishes it.
We disagree that that is an answer. The verbiage you cited specifically applies to den coordinated camping, on its face.
But since you are the guy who publishes it, would you care to edify us on the thought behind it, given the situation posed?
Here's a hypothetical to help view the policy gap more clearly:
Twin 11-year-old brothers arrive at our Troop. They are looking for a Troop to join.
Their parents asks if their twins may attend a camping trip before deciding on whether to commit to joining.
"Sure!" We say, as this is allowed under current policies, and they are covered by BSA insurance as outlined in the G2SS.
"Scouts and guests who are being encouraged to become registered Scouts and volunteers are automatically insured while in attendance at a scheduled activity."
https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/
1) We ask the parents for an AHMR A&B. We discuss any potential medical constraints... (required by BSA)
2) We get signed permission slips. (Not required by BSA, but by us...)
3) We have two leaders have a discussion on behavior expectations with the youth and parents.
4) The parents agree to pick up the youth from our event if they do not hold to those expectations.
We guide them through some gear recommendations, and get them plugged into patrols with their buddies.
Before they leave that meeting, the parents say, "We really hope this works out. Jimmy has not had a good experience in his Cub Scout pack. His brother Johnny never joined because of that. We really want them to be in a good unit that is a good fit."
Are you telling me we have to tell the parents Johnny can go, but Jimmy cannot, because Jimmy is registered as a Cub Scout?
-
I do not recall seeing this one in scoutshop.org.
Might be a custom job?
Reasonable Level of Evolvement & Troop Culture
in Open Discussion - Program
Posted
The SM and ASMs mentor the Annual Planning to help the PLC meet their targets, constraints, and restrictions. (Restrictions like that they cannot plan to do skydiving, hot air balloon trips, parkour, or a Troop boxing tournament... you know, prohibited stuff that they would love to do!)
And, for clarity, please, what do you mean by TLC?