InquisitiveScouter

1 minute ago, PaleRider said:

You a poet and didn't know it. Thank you

But his feet surely show it!  They are Longfellows!

A fed animal is a dead animal.

41 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I would add some nuance to that.  My troop may have higher standards than council or BSA.  The CC and COR are the people who recruit, select, and are responsible for troop leadership.  Something that might not be full stop grounds for ending scouting membership might still be grounds for a change or even an ending of the individual's role in the troop. 

Additionally, I would really want to understand in depth any incident that was concerning enough for one of our parents to believe it worthy of reporting to council.  This is the type of thing that make it really important to remember how the chartering model works and how responsible the CO is for what goes on in the unit, irrespective of the views of the umbrella organization.

Yes, the Committee may be looking into this because the Scoutmaster (who works for the Committee!) brought the incident to their attention and asked for intervention.  That may be the entire reason the Committee asked to meet with parents and Scouts who were involved... as opposed to anyone "leaking" a report of a YP violation from the council.

The Committee may be approaching this as a Troop disciplinary issue, or even some sort of health and safety concern, versus viewing it through a YP lens.

Unless the OP informed the Committee (or others in the Troop) of the YP Report, the Committee may be completely in the dark about what has been filed at the council or national.

39 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I am just one simple player of tens of thousands headed to the sunset.

And in which hearts will Tradition lie?

And can "Tradition" go extinct when all the hearts which hold the Tradition die?

There are many who still carry the flame...

But, yes, when all the hearts die, the tradition dies, too...unless it is written and recorded.  It can be then resurrected.

27 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for thee.

We are all loyal passengers on a train ill-driven.

I have already attended that funeral twice...  Camp Linwood Hayne, Georgia-Carolina Council, and Treasure Island, Cradle of Liberty.

1 hour ago, sst3rd said:

It happened earlier this week. Our council sold its primitive camp for their contribution to the fund.

This was an established camp with many shops, other buildings, trails, and organized campsites. I was a member of the maintenance committee. Over many years, we built all of these facilities. Over 40 strong of mostly retired unit leaders that still wanted to contribute to scouting.

Over 500 acres of rolling hills and woods. Six ponds to fish out of, and frontage on a recreational lake. My troop had a favorite waterfront campsite where I could launch my boat right off the shore. All of the aquatic merit badges were taught there. This was a former farm that grew tobacco, then cows and horses. The family surprisingly donated this farm to our council after the last family member passed away a long time ago.

I'll have the memories of course, but this has affected many scouts, former scouts, leaders, and former leaders. This was a great camp at a perfect location. The fellowship was amazing. Helped me a lot during covid.

The council said that it was the only liquid asset it had to raise our contribution. We begged to differ. We even made a competitive bid, but the developer's was bigger. Bigger wins. It's over with of course. It's done. The council wanted our maintenance crew to go out and support the council's "real" camp. But it's located many miles to the west of us. For the record, they've never had a dedicated volunteer maintenance crew out there, but have three paid staff employees.  

We understand the council has to make the required payment. I, of course, recognize my council had abuse problems over the many years. It's serious and complicated.

As the former maintenance committee members go our separate ways, I am reminded of these words;

"softly falls the light of day, as our campfire fades away..................................................."

Take care,

 

sst3rd

 

What camp and council?

27 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Years ago I talked with our registrar when our council was looking to sell a piece of property.  I was sad.  Her comment is that if you look at the council over time, property has been bought or donated and sold.  Camps change hands.  ...  Then she started identifying the past camps our council had.  I never knew that our council had so many different camps over the last 90 years.  

"Don't let it become a salaried organization: keep it a voluntary movement of patriotic service."  BP

35 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Okay. It’s not about the shirt. It’s not about the troop uniform. It’s about the SM being mean (again) and preventing the SPL to make decisions on uniforming and uniform inspection.

This is triggering on two levels:

• I reported to others about a teacher in my middle school teacher turning out to be a pedophile. He otherwise a nice guy to us — and that got into an extended debate about if I was a victim of grooming. Well he wasn’t nice to all of us. He was downright mean to a friend. And, from my child’s perspective, my friend was a jerk. My friend kinda knew it, and intentionally did whatever he could to set off this guy’s fuse. But, when word got out, my friend was incredulous about the accusations until a mutual friend of one of the victims told us it was legit. Life Lesson: men and women who are downright mean to one kid might have something to hide involving other kids.
• One of the abuse survivors who took the time to tell us on his story on this forum told us about how his SM was super meticulous… to the point of bringing a ruler to measure patch placement on uniforms. That struck a nerve with me because I had a stickler of an SM when it came to language or bad behavior, but when it came to uniforms, he gave the inspection sheets to the SPL, whose responsibility was to read it and rate us. If my old-school-as-it-got SM was not inserting himself into the nitty-gritty of uniform inspection, nobody’s SM should have been.  It’s now on my list of red flags.

Finally, I have done things wrongly by my scouts and venturers. I told them I did, apologized, and promised to do better next time. I walked the problem through with seasoned scouters. I improved. You should expect that from a good SM.

You did the right thing to report. You do need to stick to your guns. You clearly don’t owe anything to that CC or CoR and you just voted with your feet.

Let your SE know that that troop needs to do better, and you think that that volunteer should be ineligible.

It is important to say that maybe, just maybe, we don't have the complete story here.  If I were the COR or SE, I'd like to hear from about three or four more people to hone in on "the facts of the case" before forming any judgements about the situation.

39 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Just landed on the docket, whatever this means.  

Minute Entry: The Court will not be ruling on confirmation at the omnibus hearing on May 25. The only matters going forward at the omnibus hearing are those listed on the agenda. - RE: [9714] Order on Omnibus Hearings scheduled for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware (LJJ) (LJJ)

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=3552&tagid=1153&dateFrom=05/15/2022&dateTo=05/21/2022

Estimates as to how long BSA can last on life support waiting for a Chapter 11 confirmation?  What do the tea leaves say about the imminence of Chapter 7?

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But, Eagle94 is right. A big part of the problem is the adults who don't want to stop hand holding. They don't really see that is what they are doing, but they can't seem to let go of the idea that these young men are still children who need protection from the pain of growing up.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Getting the adults out-of-the-way is the key to getting the new scouts up to speed.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The thing about scouting is seeking ways to improve without giving up on the principles of the program.

Loved these best parts of your post!!!

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

How does one message the moderator team? 

@yknot, in the upper right corner of any post you do not like, you can select the three dots and hit "Report"

49 minutes ago, yknot said:

The Bureau of Labor statistics fact sheet clearly states it does not include any infectious event not linked to an injury. That is not the same as saying that no one is at risk of dying, which I think we both clearly agree is a high risk event. The thing about the health care profession though is that infectious disease events are not outliers, they are inherent to the work.  The type of fatality risk might be different for some professions -- falling out of tree for a logger for example vs. contracting a fatal disease for a doctor or nurse during periodic outbreaks -- but the types of individuals who choose to work in these fields both have a high threshhold for risk acceptance. However, healthcare is somehow viewed as a low risk, nurturing profession mainly because many women pursue it. When people use those kinds of false perceptions to buttress claims that women prefer menu planning and eschew action and adventure, or when they claim that women are incapable of holding leadership positions because they exhibit more neuroticism than men as was recently, and unbelievably, posted as evidence by Inquisitive Scouter, I think they need to be called out on it loudly. If you find that incomprehensible, I can only say you're going to have an interesting ride going forward in scouting as the numbers of girls and women in it increase. 

@yknot, you really are too much...

1.  "However, healthcare is somehow viewed as a low risk, nurturing profession mainly because many women pursue it."  No one ever said it was "low risk"  I even said, 

On 5/16/2022 at 6:59 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Depends on how you define "risk"

2.  I never made any such claim, that women are incapable of holding leadership positions...

53 minutes ago, yknot said:

When people use those kinds of false perceptions to buttress claims that women prefer menu planning and eschew action and adventure, or when they claim that women are incapable of holding leadership positions because they exhibit more neuroticism than men as was recently, and unbelievably, posted as evidence by Inquisitive Scouter

Please search my posts, and show me wrong.

3.  No one ever said women prefer menu planning.  What @Eagledad said was "Boys by nature want action and adventure. That other stuff like meeting, planning, and planning menus is not in their wheelhouse. "

Again, search his posts and prove me wrong, please.

4.  And Neuroticism is a trait described in the well-accepted Big Five Personality Trait model.   https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422  And, IT IS A FACT that women exhibit the characteristics of Agreeableness and Neuroticism MORE THAN MEN!

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178/full

"Neuroticism

Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism as measured at the Big Five trait level, as well as on most facets of Neuroticism included in a common measure of the Big Five,..."

"Agreeableness

Agreeableness comprises traits relating to altruism, such as empathy and kindness. Agreeableness involves the tendency toward cooperation, maintenance of social harmony, and consideration of the concerns of others (as opposed to exploitation or victimization of others). Women consistently score higher than men on Agreeableness and related measures, such as tender-mindedness"

And these two traits are consistently NOT demonstrated by people in positions of high stress leadership.  Which is but one explanation as to why women do not lead more corporations than men

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijtd.12113

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733164/

I cast four more pearls before you...let's see how you receive them...

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

For Venturing Advisers, I would say go after the 21+ years olds who aged out of the program. Some do remain in the area, and others who are addicted to Scouting in general, and Venturing in particular do volunteer wherever they move.

Hard part now will be finding them. Sadly every single EBOR I have sat in on since 2018 when 18-20 year olds not only do not count for YP purposes, but also must essentially give up freinds and/or classmates who are involved in Scouting who are under 18 because of YP rules that they must follow, but again do not count towards.

And if anyone says, "but 50% of the abuse is youth on youth now," I say show me the RAW data. Mark Twain said it best. "There are lies. there are d@&*ed lies. Then there are statistics."  

Yes, I'd like to see the average age of the youth abuser, and the average age of the youth abused.  Those ages would give us a clearer picture of the problem.

30 minutes ago, elitts said:

Look, it's another sweeping generalization based upon some headline somewhere.  Not to diminish the mental and physical sacrifice people in the Health Care industry made during the first 12-18 months of COVID, but again, you just aren't relating the actual data accurately.

1. The way statistics works is that when data is being unusually impacted by some specific factor that isn't likely to be ongoing, that data gets excluded the study as an "Outlier".  When it comes to industry related mortality rates, that's what all of the COVID related deaths would be considered because world-wide pandemics are highly unusual.  So NO, Health Care doesn't even come close to being a hazardous profession in general.  Pre-COVID, Health Care didn't even make the top 20 and had a rate of death very similar to other professional and scientific fields.  At least, that's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks.
2. Even if we were just looking at which industries suffered the most fatalities from COVID, it's not Health Care. 

   Though to be fair, there was a brief window of July 2021 - Nov. 2021 where Health Care workers tragically took the top ranking.

elitts, thanks...I had exhausted my supply of pearls

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

My own experience is that scout growth is dramatically slower without older scouts modeling the skills the new scouts need to learn. Troop Guides are OK, but they have to teach most of the skills in more of a classroom setting, while new scouts in a mixed age patrol just have to watch the skills being used in normal activities. The scouts in new scouts patrols tend to get bored because they don't stay busy enough when the troop guide isn't around. There is no resource of experience other than the troop guide. Then usually means the adults have to fill in to make sure the new scouts have a continued program.  

Another problem I observed is most troops put their less experienced younger scouts in the troop Guide position when the minimum age should be 15 or older. The worst Troops Guides I saw or worked with were 14 and younger. The best ones where 15 and older. In fact, our very best troop guides were past SPLs. They said that Troop Guide just seem like a natural progression for them.

A totally scout run patrol is almost impossible with new scout patrols.

Barry

+1

I believe the "regimental system" would be ideal.  That is, a patrol exists in perpetuity.  A Scout grows up in one patrol, and is always a member of that patrol.  As new Scouts join the Troop, they are assigned to patrols as manning needs, based on those who have left or "graduated"

It would be awesome if you had a "Sorting Hat" https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Sorting_Hat  to determine which patrol a Scout should go into.  Alas, we mere mortals must do what we can.  I think random selection is probably best.

The ideal patrol is 5 to 8 Scouts.  Above six, and they naturally break into two sub-units anyway.  Extensive research on optimal group size for task effectiveness has shown the number to be around 5 or 6 (but it does depend on the task.)  Eight allows sufficient team members present when the inevitable absences occur for camping trips and events. 

Here are a few short reads...

https://www.totalteambuilding.com.au/ideal-team-size/

https://conversational-leadership.net/optimal-group-size/#:~:text=Far too often in small,is the optimal group size.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaimepotter/2020/04/27/the-ideal-team-size-at-work-may-be-smaller-than-you-think/?sh=704263b7630a

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/u-s-army-military-organization-from-squad-to-corps-4053660

https://hbr.org/2015/08/what-companies-can-learn-from-military-teams

https://tcscouts.org/UoS/000-NationalTrainingCourses/BSBLT/BP quotes.pdf

BP opined the best Troop size was 16 Scouts (that is, two patrols), but, allowing that others might be twice the man he was, he said it could go to 32.  But that was based on personally knowing and developing each Scout.

"The number in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two.  I suggest this number because in training boys myself I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with-in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two." BP

"Men talk of having fine Troops of 60 or even 100-and their leaders tell me that their boys are equally well trained as in smaller Troops. I express admiration, and I don't believe them." BP

We have 54 Scouts currently... when I go down the roster and count the Scouts who I know, and who do a good job in the woods, or what I would deem "well-trained"... 29 (but that does not include some of the new crossovers who I have not observed yet)

If they were all dedicated, I think 32 is a great number... Four patrols of eight.  

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Determining mental and physical Maturity can be tough. My older son weighed 105 lbs at age 16. Yet, he had more backpacking experience than most of our troop. In fact, he once carried his backpack and the backpack of a member of their exhausted crewmate a couple miles on a Philmont trek. On the other hand, I had some tough athletes who fell apart mentally. And that usually happens at the beginning of the trek, so we're stuck with them the whole trek. They are a challenge because everyone, including themselves, assumes they can do the trek based from their physical ability. I was lucky on one such trip that the scout's dad was one of our adults. We let him deal with his son. The constant physical effort of paddling for miles or carrying a 40lb pack up a mountain is as much mental as it is physical. Some folks just aren't conditioned for it. 

Barry

I would push it further and say it is mostly mental/psychological (rather than "as much")

We have some 12 year olds that do just fine. 

We have some 14 year olds that still have significant challenges with anxiety and homesickness.

I have already excluded two 14 year olds from our upcoming trek that have not demonstrated the level of maturity I want.  (Yes, I said "I want", because I will be responsible for them in the wilderness. )

16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The problem is that ,many adults are stuck on the imaginary age 14 restriction. Our only restriction was physical fitness maturity to make sure the scouts could physically do the adventure task safely. Except for Philmont. Could not get past that restriction. But, we usually did at least two or our own high adventure pack packing treks anyways. So, everyone that wanted to go backpacking could go. That doesn't include our backpacking weekend campout.

Barry

On the trips I lead, I put in the remarks, "Must be 14 by the start date, or with adult leader approval."  I have made a few errors in judgment over the years in opening trips to all ages, only to wind up dealing with problems caused by immaturity or lack of physical ability to do the trip.  (not my own immaturity or inability...for those of you who want to swing at that softball... 😜 )

3 minutes ago, ramanous said:

The leaders are only running the program National is pushing

Its one thing when a Scout advances quickly using thier own ambition, but pushing for 1st class in a year, and Eagle by 16 waters down the brand. The fact that there's are competing interests, and not enough "bandwidth", just means a Scout has to make tough decisions about what they think is important. Hence, why some Scoutd will earn Eagle and other won't. If all Scouts earned Eagle, then its just another particpation trophy.

 

 

 

Even with an aggressive and skill intensive program, in which we provide huge amounts of opportunity, it takes new Scouts on average about two years to get to First Class.  That is, actually doing the requirements as written, without them being spoon-fed by adults.  (Fitness requirements, for example.)

If a Scout focuses and learns by her own ambition and initiative, First Class can be done in about 90 days, which is the minimum time.   (This is for the ones who join later, like the 15/16 year olds.)

18 minutes ago, Calion said:

Why were these done away with?

Great question!  In reality, they weren't.  That is, you can organize your Troop any way you wish, and if you want to have an older group called the Venture Patrol, then go for it.

Here's a website with some more details... http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/venture.html

Programmatically, who knows why the BSA moved away from this?  The old heads here (like me) remember the Leadership Corps, which was essentially the same thing.  http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/leadershipcorps.html

The REALLY old heads will remember Rovers, Emergency Service, Senior Scouts, etc...

http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/

Enjoy the reads...

33 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Quite right. The leaders are only running the program National is pushing. Thanks for the correction.

Barry

We 'make it work' by using Troop Guides during the first six months and a lot of adult skill instruction during the first year.  I wish we didn't have to 'make it work.' 

Our reality is that, around 16, our Scouts move on to other things.  Venturing, OA, jobs, girls, cars, hanging with friends, school clubs, music, sports, martial arts, etc, etc.

Loyalty to an institution is not part of our wider cultural mindset any more.  In general, there is more of a narcissistic "What's in it for me?" attitude, and the belief that you must be involved in all those other activities in order to compete for college (which I do not believe is reality)

They just do not have the bandwidth to do all the things they want to do (neither do I, for that matter), and after 5 years of Scouting and Eagle, most move on.  I have learned to be OK with that.  For the ones that do stay,  we offer more adventures further afield, but the expectation is that, during 'regular' troop programming, they serve and help the SPL with leadership tasks. 

After 16, we hang on to about one third of them.

13 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

If there is no fire, it's easy to scratch off. 

Our fire position is responsible for stove set up and getting an adult to check, charcoal prep if we are Dutch oven cooking, and firewood gathering/prep/lighting.  There must always be enough tinder/kindling/fuel on hand for the next fire.  At the end of the trip, we leave it for the next group.

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

Wow...  Those were a couple examples for illustrative purposes. As far as Covid, I didn't think you'd dismiss the thousands of health care workers, from physicians to nurses to aides, who have died in the past few years from Covid, far eclipsing fatalities in any other profession. Infection doesn't count in your book? That doesn't qualify as bravery or a high risk profession?  Wow.  Those were not people who got infected and just got sick... Those are people who died. Google yourself how many. You won't believe what I post anyway.  
 

J'ai mon voyage

You are mixing apples and oranges...

The article is referencing physical assaults, not fatalities.  Would you agree one is worse than the other?  (Just to be clear, a fatality is worse than an assault, in my book.)

And DWB is 45K people from around the planet.  Can we limit our discussions to folks in the US as our target population?  If so, there are 22.3M healthcare workers in the US.  Even if I allow you the courtesy of saying all 45K were from the US, they are still only 0.2% of the entire healthcare workforce.  Obviously, far less than that fits the bill...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html

My cousin's uncle's brother's sister's dog once barked at the moon.  Doesn't make the dog an astronaut.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions.

Depends on how you define "risk" I suppose....for infection?  Sure.  For fatalities? No way...

https://www.facilities.udel.edu/safety/4689/