InquisitiveScouter

Agree with much of this. If Instagram is a public forum (and it is, because government officials use it to engage with the public) then people can say whatever the heck they want. Now, BSA tagging and reposting IS a problem. But that is on BSA... And yes, adults should tell their Scouts to ignore posts that BSA has tagged for their Troop, exactly because they (as you say) seem to allow people who make hateful comments. Your Scouts need to learn to speak up to confront, or ignore, just as you and I do. There are a lot of hateful people in the world... you are not going to shield your Scouts from them, so teach your Scouts to recognize them and how to deal with them. Again, BSA seemingly "endorsing" content by tagging and reposting is problematic... such is a danger of social media. I tell my Scouts about these dangers in all social media, and explain to them this is but one of the reasons I do not use it. IMO, social media has given a platform for arrogant personalities to amplify, aggregate, and confirm their arrogance and hostility. (Many times, without any repercussions.) Which is again, why I do not use it. You can function fine, in fact, even better, in the world without it. The draw of social media is that it creates an illusion of "missing out." And fear of missing out (FOMO) drives a lot of adults and youth to social media. Tell your Scouts that social media is not their friend. Social media exists primarily, to use and exploit them through data mining, advertising and monetizing content. And "... the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil." Tell your Scouts that, in social media, THEY (and their data) are the product being harvested and sold. Help them see it for what it really is. https://socialmediavictims.org/mental-health/fomo/ Concur that BSA has no obligation to allow... and BSA should not "platform hateful comments on their own posts." Again, sounds like you are railing at BSA primarily, and the haters secondarily... Tell BSA your opinion that they should either 1) police they content they are endorsing, 2) shutoff the comment features (if they can do that), or 3) abandon the scourge that social media is.

Let's be careful here... Rules (and rulemakers) cannot perfectly address all situations. Just like laws (and lawmakers) cannot. There has to be room for judgment, common sense, and matters of conscience. For example, take something simple like the speed limit. It is the law. Day to day, I obey it, even though it is really inconvenient. (Yes, I am that guy on the road, in the right lane with cruise control set to the speed limit 😜 ) But, if I am transporting a Scout to the emergency room, you can bet your boots I am speeding. I will break that law. The situation demands it. For most BSA rules and policies, although they are inconvenient, I obey them. But I leave room for judgment, common sense, and matters of conscience. For example, when my son asked to have a friend (who happens to be a Scout) sleep over, and friend's parents approve, it is fine with me, whether my wife is home or not. I assert that BSA rules take no precedence over my private family life. The case you cite is dead on, though... and exposes a hypocrisy. I see many unit leaders shrug off rules and policies, simply because it is inconvenient. IMO, these folks are dangerous, as they place themselves above rules, policies, and laws, in more and more situations, out of convenience. These are the ones who slide down the slippery slope and get to the point where they ignore the rationale behind a certain rule, policy (or law). And they can wind up getting other people (including youth) hurt or killed. I'll list multiple examples of this, if you care...

The line for bullying and harassment is at the point where someone is addressing comments at youth, and you ask them to stop. When they don't, it crosses the line. If you just don't like what they are saying, or if their statements are general, and not directed at anyone specifically, it isn't bullying... it is just them being a horrible person. In a public forum, people have the freedom of speech. In a public forum, you have the right to not listen. The forum you spoke of in your OP was not a public forum. (And this is not a public forum either...) Could/should someone have stepped in? That was primarily up to whomever owns/moderates that forum. If you thought it was egregious or threatening, did you speak up there?

P.S. We adults do have to limit their appetite. The Scouts ask to do many more activities than we adult volunteers can support. But, I have noticed their eyes do tend to be bigger than their stomachs. That is, the more activities we added, the fewer the average number of Scouts who participated in those activities. A bit of scarcity in supply seemed to increase the real demand/uptake.

Target program is negotiable. Start maybe with identifying how many program elements the adults can support, since that is now the limiting factor. Side note: I think this is one of the things killing Scouting. Back in the day, we got together as a Patrol without adults. We did hikes, service projects, meetings, or just hung out. Scouts are not allowed to do such things now. After you determine what the adults can support, present that to the PLC. You saw my earlier post with what the Committee together with the direct contact leaders can do. We have an ASM assigned to each patrol. So, each patrol is like its own Troop. The patrol also gets to sprinkle in two or three patrol-only camping trips during the year. This takes a good many adults. If the ASM has additional bandwidth, they can do extra patrol activities. This used to be easier, as they could do day only activities with only an extra parent present. Now, two registered are required, so it is much more difficult. Again, killing Scouting IMO. We do ask the PLC each time if THEY want to use JTE. The metrics are useful for determining a quality program. The PLC has a culture of accepting the JTE targets and using them to help achieve a quality program. If they ever decide to ditch it, the Committee will have to be good with it.

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?

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?

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.

Heretic!

You have described this correctly. Thank you.

And how's that working out for us?

But, but, but... we can use these as FUNDRAISERS! 😜 Do you remember when your lodge and council had ONE flap and CSP? smh

God forbid? 😜

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.

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.

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...

This

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?

Love the idea, but... trademark violation.

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.

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...

Funny how we discuss these things here, and voila! National starts "testing the waters" on this...

100% 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.

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: 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.