CalicoPenn

The Unit Commissioner was wrong - very wrong - to not allow people who were not on the committee to observe - the BSA makes clear that all meetings are open to parents to observe.

You actually don't, regardless of popular opinion, have any obligation to the chartered organization, unless you are part of the chartered organization and it's part of either a calling (as is often the case in LDS units) or is part of your responsibilities within the chartered organization.

You have stated in this e-mail that this is now affecting your health.  While your desire to stick around for the boys in your den is admirable - at what point do you put your own needs health-wise above the needs of others?  I would suggest that this is that point.

This is a toxic atmosphere for you - you need to leave it - now.  I see two options for you - and both involve leaving this Pack.  Sticking around with this pack is NOT an option - not if its affecting your health.

In either case, you need to talk to the parents of the boys in your den so that you know what to do.  Option 1 is to contact that other pack and see if you can transfer your den and all the boys that want to come with to it.  This is one of the reasons you need to talk to the parents - get their agreement before you call that pack.

Option 2 is to leave the pack and den to it's own devices - maybe you take your own kids to a different pack - but if the other parents want to stay, then one of them is going to have to step up and take over the Den.

Either way, you need to step away from this Pack.

Now there will be people who will not like my next statement at all - they will think it's disloyal and Scouts are loyal after all.  But Scouts are also brave - and this will take some bravery.

There is a major red flag in what you wrote - you have a disengaged chartering organization and a committee chair that is controlling, in secret, the check book.  when you leave this Pack (and note I said when, not if) - you should contact the head of the chartering organization and let them know that the Pack Committee Chair is being secretive about the Pack's finances, which can also be considered part of the Chartered Organization's finances and that while you don't want to accuse her of anything nefarious, you would suggest that the CO does an audit of the finances of the Pack.

Question - have you asked the Scouts that are not participating why they aren't participating?  I think too often we spin our wheels trying to figure things out and never think to just ask.

When I was a Scout (in the 1970's) neckerchiefs were worn by the boys - the only exception was the Wood Badge neckerchiefs and we understood that as the adults playing at being Boy Scouts.

The adults wore ties or bolos - being from the suburbs of Chicago bolos tended to be worn as part of the "informal" uniform - which really was just the full uniform without a tie.  Bolos were typically worn to scout meetings and roundtables.  Ties were reserved for Courts of Honor and Scout Sunday.  My uncle in Arizona only wore Bolos - no ties - as an adult Scouter.

When I was a Scout, we didn't like wearing neckerchiefs but not because it didn't look cool - we didn't like them because it was too easy for them, or the slide, or both, to get lost - but wear them we did.  They often played a role in our Scout meetings - we were always using our neckerchiefs for something - first aid practice, knot tying - we learned that they could be pretty handy things. 

I guess I'm still a fan of neckerchiefs - but it should be the boys decisions - since adults shouldn't wear neckerchiefs anyway, adults shouldn't get a vote.

Why the arcane Patrol Yell?  Stosh keeps answering his own question.

  #1 reason - group cohesiveness.  SPL asks if Coyote Patrol is present - the Coyote Patrol, as a group, does the yell.  Helps cement the group.  Patrols playing capture the flag?  Coyote Patrol get's the flag - does the Patrol Yell in celebration.  Helps cement the group.  Coyote Patrol finishes a camporee event - does the yell - helps cement the group.

#2 reason - communications.  Sure, we have cell phones and internet, etc. but if you're out camping and the grubmaster wants to tell the Patrol that dinner is ready, is texting really the way to go (if you even have cell access where you're camping)?  No - the grubmaster gives the Coyote Patrol yell - everyone knows the Coyote Patrol's dinner is ready.  Why use the yell and not just yell out Dinner's Ready?  Say you have 5 patrols - which patrol's dinner is ready?  Only one patrol?  Again - group cohesiveness.

Let's not put the yell on the trash heap just because we've got technology.  There are still places and times to use it.  If the Scouts aren't sure how to use it - it's time for the Old Goat Patrol to come up with one and start using it - after a couple of outings, the Scouts will get it if the adults will let themselves go and have fun with it.

As for what kind of yell for a Coyote Patrol?  Tahawk has the idea - Coyote's howl.  The best yells are something short and something Scouts will use and can use in multiple situations - a 10 line poem is just too long - and what Grubmaster is going to announce that dinner is ready by reciting a poem? 

The Congressional Charter was issued in 1916 - signed by Woodrow Wilson on June 15, 2016.

WOSM was founded in 1922.  The Boy Scouts of America was one of the founding members.

The Congressional Charter was issued mostly as an imprimatur of support of the BSA's goals and objectives by Congress.  Though mostly honorary, it does give monopoly protections and adds a bit more weight to the BSA's copyright and trademark claims.  It wasn't issued as a desire by Congress that the BSA be the US's representative in WOSM.

That Congress gave a Congressional Charter to the BSA is more a matter of the BSA got to them first than anything else.  It could just as easily have been the Boy Scouts of the USA or the Lone Scouts that got the charter first.

In 1992, Congress stopped granting Congressional Charters - if the BSA were to fold tomorrow, a competing Scout organization for boys could not get a Congressional Charter.

I would suggest that a closer reading of the Charter suggests that the BSA is not prevented from offering programming and services to constituencies that are not boys but that the BSA must provide programming to boys and that they may provide the same programming to adults and girls if they choose.  It is only a violation of the charter if they stop offering programs and services to boys.  It is not a violation of the charter to offer programs and services to girls and adults.

I was hoping for cobbler.

OMG - Scout Membership is dropping!  It must be the gays!!  It must be the girls!!  It must be the trans kids!!  It must be the non-religious!!  It must be the liberals!!!  Everybody Panic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There have been a lot of stories about whole troops and packs folding as a result of the policy changes.  So what?  There have been a lot of stories about CO's dumping units and those units being picked up by new CO's too.  If a CO has decided not to keep a unit and it folds instead of being picked up by another CO, chances are pretty good that the unit didn't have very dedicated adult leadership in the first place since no one bothered to try to find a new CO.

The BSA has gained and lost units before the policy changes - they'll keep doing so afterwards.  When I was growing up in the 70's, my town had 4 Boy Scout Troops and 6 Cub Scout Packs - it now has one of each - and those other units folded long before the BSA even heard the name Dale. 

There have been a lot of stories about volunteers leaving unit and district leadership positions over the policy.  Again I ask so what?  Frankly, maybe its for the best - I'd rather not have leaders who are that fragile about things like this infecting the Scouts with their intolerance.  There are still plenty of people in Scouting (and on this board) that oppose the policies but aren't leaving Scouting over it - I applaud and respect them because they understand that there are more important things in Scouting than their personal preferences - they're very much like the Scouters that stayed in that opposed the earlier policies - they didn't like it but knew taking care of the boys was more important.

Anyone who looks at the decline in Scouting numbers and points to any single reason as the main culprit is just not paying attention to what is happening in the world, and has failed to look at past experiences.  From a purely population point of view, the BSA was relatively stable in membership through the 1940's then numbers began to increase - and we're talking large increases - because the population started growing - specifically the population of eligible boys (hello Baby Boom).  Membership started dropping in the late 1970's and through the 1980's - do folks really think it's a coincidence that the population of eligible boys also declined during this time?  Membership increased again in the 90's - and yep, there was a significant increase the population of eligible boys).

Of course, it's not always about population.  There is an incredibly larger variety of activities available for youth than there used to be.  The BSA has always had drop-off during the high school years - and for the most part, that's because the high schools opened up a whole lot of new activity opportunities - sports, band, theater, clubs.  When I was growing up, there weren't all that many activities available until high school.  Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, Little League, Pop Warner Football, Summer Swim Team - that was about it.  There weren't soccer leagues yet.  There certainly weren't year round, privately run soccer, volleyball, gymnastics, etc. sports academies.  Boy Scouts is facing more and more competition for youth time.

And let's not forget, as folks have nibbled around - there is a lot less interest in the outdoors and camping as there used to be.  Back in my day (sorry to sound so curmudgeonly here), the BSA didn't need to have adult training classes like IOLS or Baloo - and it wasn't the advent of allowing woman to be Scout leaders that necessitated them - back then, most of the leaders - men and women - had a lot of experience with the outdoors (the 50's through 70's and a bit in to the early 80's was the heyday of vacations spent traveling around the country and camping while doing so).  Let's be honest here, adults are not going to steer their children in to activities in which they don't have a comfort zone with. With soccer, parents really get the "how to be a spectator" dynamic.  With Boy Scouts, if they don't camp - they're less likely to sign their kids up for Scouts. 

Media to blame lack of gun control rather than poor parenting in 3...2...1...

Is there any particular reason that it can't be both?

Premise 3:  It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not a choice - we're all human beings and it's our job to love each other, not judge each other.

Why do we have heavy violence in Chicago?  Hint - it's not about gangs anymore - it's about people feeling disrespected and not knowing how to appropriately respond.

Unit Leader = Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Coach, Advisor and Skipper - or their assistants.

Den and Assistant Den leaders are not Unit Leaders - they don't lead the unit, they lead a section of the unit.

Committee Members are not Unit Leaders - they don't lead the Unit - they provide support to the Unit.

I've never quite understood how questioning the existance of God is not consistent with doing one's Duty to God. Does it not follow that when someone questions the authority or existance of God, that it often (if not usually) serves to strengthen others belief in God and if that's the case, then hasn't the non-theist actually done God a service?

In a Pack - program leaders (Cubmaster, ACM's, Den Leaders) are NOT part of the Committee (So your new CC is right about this). However, the Committee does NOT plan the Pack's program. The Packs program leaders do that. The Cubmaster (not the Committee Chair) is in charge of the Pack's program leaders - s/he recruits the Den Leaders). The Cubmaster sits on the committee in an advisory/liason position. He tells the Committee what the program plans are, and the Committee does what is needed to support that program. They don't get to veto the program but they are responsibile for making sure the program does not conflict with the chartered organizations policies and schedule. Of course, this assumes a perfect world. In your case, I would just do what is right for the boys - if you can find an assistant to help you, pull those 5 Bear Cubs in to your den and let the assistant help with Bear advancement. Run your program the way you and the program leaders want it to be run - and if the Committee interferes, tell them to either support you or go pound sand. If what you say is true about the Pack, it's going to die - there is nothing you can do about that except to make sure the boys in the program currenty are being served properly.

Colonel Mylord Flagg?  Can I shorten it to Myles?

Just curious, but to which position in the debate is this question posed?

Which position do you think is questioning the legitimacy of God's creations?  If God created all, then God surely created the girls that believe they are really boys and the boys that believe they are really girls.  Who are we to question his wisdom in that?

What a great sentiment - good thing she doesn't read parts of this forum.

Now that I have read through the entire thread I have a question for some of you......When did God die and put you in charge of determing the legitimacy of his creations?

No, they are not the exclusive domain of boys, but the stated purpose in the congressional charter is for the training of boys. Read the charter again carefully - it doesn't say boys exclusively - it says boys - I'd argue that you can serve girls and adults as well - heck, you can even serve dogs and cats - as long as you are serving boys. It's if you stop serving boys that you run awry of the charter, not if you serve people in addition to boys.

Tahawk said:

So I'm a liberal now? My liberal friends will be stunned to hear that.

My Goddess, if you're a liberal, what does that make me?

It's curious.  If our goal is develop character in the boys, why do we care where they practice it?  I can think of several examples where boys left at age 15 with their Eagle badge.  They went on to practice the leadership and personal development skills they learned in any number of other programs, school, sports, etc.  Why is that looked down on?  Seems to me that's exactly the kind of success we're looking for.  Putting some sort of life-long debt on a 15 or 16 year old boy sort of diminishes the good work we're supposed to be doing, no?  Good work, and watching a young man succeed in the world is its own reward, expecting a return on investment is a business deal.  

I understand the sentiment but it leads me to a question - if we decide it doesn't matter where a 15-year old Eagle Scout practices the leadership skills we hope they've gained, why even bother keeping the Boy Scout age at 17 - why not just change the program so that Boy Scouts is from 11-15 and Eagle Scout must be earned before a boys 16th birthday?

I've heard the term "Eagled Out" a number of times.  I usually try to correct the record.  A Scout can "Age Out".  A Scout can't "Eagle Out".  If someone refers to a Scout as having "Eagled Out", I tell them no, he hasn't Eagled Out - he's quit.

The Boy Scouting part of the program is designed to provide activities, adventures and learning opportunities for boys from 11 to 17 inclusive.  Advancement is just one of the methods used in Scouting.   As unit leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that this program is offered.  When a boy quits - regardless of age or rank, then there is something missing from the program being offered.  Sure, there will be that occasional Scout that is in it just for the medal and entry on his resume - but at the same time, if he's 15, you've had 4 to 5 years to deliver an awesome program that will keep him engaged beyond that narrow-sighted goal.

There are a lot of opportunities that the BSA provides for programming for the older scout and keeping them engaged - it takes some work but it can be worth it.  If Eagle Scouts are "Eagle-ing Out", then take a look at your program.  Don't forget to ask that Scout why he's leaving - and listen to him.  Chances are, eagle-ing out is is common in your unit, and you don't think of yourself as an Eagle-mill, then you've been missing opportunities all down the line - are folks really listening to Scouts at BOR's, or on the trail, or around the campfire?  Are they truly engaged in the process?  Is the Troop hidebound by tradition? 

There's no magic wand to keep 15-year old Eagle Scouts around and no one way - it's all dependent on the Troop.  But to start, I think I'd keep Eagle Scouts out of the regular patrols and would turn them in to a Leadership Corps that could support the SPL, PL's and other leaders of the Troop, and could have their own activities, without being a separate Venture group that more often than not really separates the older boys from the rest of the Troop.

I've got doubts that the disappearance of newspaper customers and newspapers had much influence at all in the loss of paperboys - mostly because the disappearance of newspapers and newspaper customers came a bit later. Except for some smaller markets, most newspaper routes were replaced by drivers in cars by the mid-to-late 80's. I know my local papers (all three of them - the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times and The Daily Herald) stopped using paperboys by 1983 because I had a part time job delivering all three, plus the Wall Street Journal, all at the same time, from my car (I got very good at tossing a paper out my drivers window over the roof of my car to land in a customer's driveway - and I had a system - Sun Times and Wall Street Journals in boxes behind me (not many customers for these), Tribunes next to me and Heralds in right rear passenger seat). The Woeld Wide Web wasn;t released to public use until 1991, and it slowly took off. By 1999, there were a lot of people on it but most were still dialing in. Broadband was really just getting started. The majority of people used AOL to sign on. Newspapers and customers starting really disappearing in the 2000's, when people started relying more on on-line news sources. By this time, the noble paperboy had already been pretty much sidelined.

In the wee hours of every morning I would get up and put 12 miles on my bicycle all by myself.  In the winter it was not yet light out.  I was 12 years old and it was called a paper-route, those things that are done today by adults in cars.  Again a society can fall apart in 50 years as being attested to now.

 

Maybe it was because the 12 and 13 year old kids of 50 years ago were more mature and responsible than their counterparts of today.

50 years ago cable television was a nascent industry and there was no 24-hours cable news stations.  Local news remained local - if local news did make the national news, it was a paragraph in the middle of a newspaper or a 15-second sound bite in the middle of a news cast.  Life seemed simpler back then - or at least less scary. 

Maybe 12 and 13 year olds were more mature and responsible back then but I'm not sure that's really the case.  I suspect that the changes really started in the 1980's and I'll be as bold to say the changes really started on June 1, 1980.  What happened on that date?  CNN started broadcasting.  Our first 24-hours news channel.  One of the first things I remember CNN broadcasting was a police chase through the streets of Atlanta - a local news story that was turned national.  Once the US election and Iranian hostage crisis were done, CNN went floundering around looking for things to cover, and found it.  1981 - Adam Walsh is abducted and killed.  1982 - Johnny Gosch is abducted and becomes the first missing child on a milk carton.  Other child abductions would follow.  Prior to the 1980's, these would have been local news stories - and may never have reached the level of becoming not only national news (for 5 minutes) but major national news stories that would be reported on for days and weeks. 

Why is this relevant?  Because I believe this is the beginning of a major psychological change in the US - instead of being filled with hope, faith, pride, caring, neighborliness - we became a nation governed by personal fear.  If a 12 year old boy in the heartland can be abducted while delivering newspapers, why that must mean there are people behind every bush waiting to abduct paper boys (this, more than anything else, is why paperboys are few and far between).

We also can't discount that the target audience of CNN was middle class suburbanites.  Soccer Mom's became a political force because of cable news - and all of a sudden, our world was being evaluated through the eyes of suburban mothers who have now become scared to send their children out on the streets without supervision.  With our implied consent (because we have either failed to, or don't really know how to counter the media juggernaut), our social contracts are now governed by the fear that the media instills in us.  It's not a coincidence that cocooning, fortressing, creating spaces at home we wouldn't want to leave, really started trending in the 1990's and 2000's.  Would a movie like Panic Room have been possible if we weren't being told every night how scary it is out there? 

I

;'ve never heard of it, or anything like it.  A traditional American dessert would be apple pie, or for scouts, a dutch oven cobbler.

Apple Pie is number 6 on the list of favorite deserts, though it is number 1 on the list of favorite pies.  It may not be our favorite desert, but it beats out Jello (though just barely - Jello is number 8 on the list).

No one has ever asked the more important question - How did the chicken cross the road.