Tron

God help him if he gets someone like my district advancement chair or the past previous. A board of review depends on the rank. For Scout - 1st Class my goal is 15min or less and focused on the scout experience and keying up on the best and worst experience of the scout on those rank journeys; I generally want myself and fellow board members to ask no more than 3 questions each. Star and Life I start asking multiple questions on the same topics, the boards start getting longer, 30-45min. I've sat on many EBORS over the year, they go long, too long, 2 hours or so, always a 6 person panel. National will not just give it to him. In my time we have only failed one person and national had no mercy for them or the troop. This is not the point of the BOR, especially not at the earlier ranks. These earlier ranks are gauging the scout experience, the health of the unit, blindspots to take back to the scoutmaster corps. Correct.

I think we're on a similar page from two different books. What I am getting at is that WOSM isn't set up to just have 1 NSO; it is the preferred method but not the only method. If the other national level organizations wanted to become the NSO then WOSM has a method of petitioning which forces a federated status as the NSO. So it's not like WOSM locks out other orgs/forces a first to the table situation; there is a way for younger better organizations to take the reigns (to some degree). As you point out two of the other organizations I listed (as examples, there are like 12 nationwide scouting organizations, maybe more here in the states) do not follow WOSM policies and their petitions would be declined. The others could file though. I think the reason why Scouting America is the NSO is that no other group wants to play exactly by the WOSM rules.

What they're really doing is setting this scout up for failure at his EBOR. Are your EBORS handled inhouse with a district rep or out of house with 1 troop rep?

This isn't quite accurate though. While there is 1 NSO (and that NSO is Scouting America here in the states), if GSUSA, Campfire, Rainbow Scouts or Trail Life wanted to become a WOSM member they can apply to WOSM and force a federation; however, those other large(ish) national level organizations don't want to federate for their own various reasons are thus locked out of WOSM.

OH YEAH I think Eagle94 has a valid point but ... I see your point, there are definitely a lot of 1940s crowd that I can understand feel bamboozled as the organization has evolved over the years. There is also the issue of all of BP's original writings, trying to reconcile the purpose statement from the congressional charter with the current aims and methods, etc ... what this organization is at the core is definitely something different than what most units/districts/councils are running. I will say that there are some evolutional things that people are fighting that is just absurd (use of technology for record keeping, stricter youth protection, updating of manuals to include modern knowledge/research into youth development and personal growth). If an evolution of the program does not contradict the congressional charter or BP's writings I think we should be open to that change in order to meet the needs of modern society and the survival of the program.

It can be a good position if the scout is on the outings and mentoring the rest of the scouts through the LNT process; they can also be used as a LNT specific Troop Guide for crossovers. The biggest problem with the outdoor ethics guide position is Scouting America licenses the LNT program from LNT.org and LNT.org has stopped providing their certification to people under 18. There was a time when you could get a willing Outdoor Ethics Guide to step up and go take LNT and come back with a serious case of saving the planet but now it's not an option.

I don't think anyone tracks that data. Even if someone at Scouting America did track that they probably have no idea where it is or how to use it. I was once asked by a DE to help restart a pack (due to the other local packs being too large) and I asked him what units had scouts from the CO and where were they currently meeting (if they had stayed in the program at all) and the best I got was deer in the headlights followed by an uncomfortable silence which was followed by a "great question my dude". There are a couple eagle mills just outside my district and I asked my DE to get the data on retention in those units (I was trying to build an argument as to why the local packs should not set up troop visits there) and my DE couldn't get the data. We found out that once a scout transfers or crosses up out of district it's as if they ceased to ever have existed in the district of origin.

I don't get the indian lore stuff at all; with all of the headaches, people looking for a fight, politically correct paths to navigate; the whole indian lore thing is a liability with no redeeming quality.

The people who never read the emails are #1. #2 is the people that transfer in from "bad units" or "failed units" and then won't shut up about how we should try what their old unit did.

I would recommend compartmentalizing this decision. When I am allowed to see numbers about units just about every council is in the same situation; an equal or greater number of troops to packs. The math is that in general you need at least 1 pack to keep a troop alive, you need 2 packs per troop in a district for the troops to thrive. The sad reality is that scouting in America is a pyramid scheme and right now we have too many troops. Some like to pitch it as we have not enough packs; however, the reality of demographics and social interest a higher number of packs have folded over the years compared to troops; so we just have too many troops. To your issue about council; we have too many councils, probably, easily, 100 too many councils. In general we have an infrastructure and organizational structure that never modernized with market conditions and technological advancements. Too many council administrators are fighting the future and just holding on for retirement.

The new requirements require a campout; an overnight stay in a tent.

Wow, just had this discussion at a troop this week. A parent was like "I want to do a canoe trip, I know a troop that will rent us their canoes and canoe trailer." and my retort was "I know that 4 of us own canoes already, why are we paying anything to rent when we can do it for free?" and the retort was the shuttle/trailer thing and I spouted back "I think we can hustle up enough people who own canoes who can also haul their own canoes." and then I said "We just need to tell all of the parents that this is a price point issue, we can provide this opportunity and adventure at a much more affordable price point for the scouts if we get more parent participation to support this event." I got the F .... you know what eyes and the stink face for the rest of the night.

But that's not what's going on here. It's This is the wrong council patch, or the kid getting this uniform didn't earn these ranks or these awards.

A lot of the uniforms I see in thrift shops here are from other councils. A lot of the used uniforms I see are also 1980s era with patches that are no longer part of the program.

They did, they were on transitional charter and lost their hat. This isn't a situation where councils get to just be a 2 yr old and say no. Instead of a merger they're now being absorbed without say in the matter.

My count is 230 councils with 4 currently known folding/merging into other councils (2 in NY, 2 in CA) right now. You're $57 is a fair market estimate of the cost to support a CE, toss in the cost of the other non district serving professionals (director of field services, director of camping/program, comptroller, staff financial accountant/advisor, registrar, etc ... )and that cost rockets up. The crazy part is that if you review the NAM videos for finance there are only like 20 councils or less that are financially stable, the majority are "stable but in trouble"., about 40 councils are ready to go bankrupt any moment.

I think everyone is on this site. Haters, lovers, perps, survivors, various lawyers and spies for the firms, and everyone in between. Patt_00's lawyer telling him to stay off of here until the case is done was wise advice.

The Methodist thing hit hard here; but it was odd. We had a lot of Methodist units, but a lot of the unit membership was not Methodist. So when the Methodist thing with the charters disrupted scouting, we lost a lot of units in my area, but the scouts were not Methodist so it never made much sense on why other non Methodist chartered units didn't pick those scouts back up? Was the Methodist church paying a lot of membership dues like the LDS was? I use to live next to a Methodist church and they were HUGE, I mean, at least 1000 active churchgoing members. They are tiny now, they had to sell their church and downsize to an old smaller church on the other side of town. I spoke with the pastor and she said they have like 100 parishioners left. It happened almost suddenly, I want to say that within a decade they went from being the largest Christian congregation in my area to the smallest and no one has a single idea why, nothing bad has ever been said about the pastor or church board. It's weird. The lack of commissioners is bad. I think my district is down to 3, the district committee is doing this at risk thing as well. The problem is no real solid definition of an at risk unit. I went to a roundtable (might have been a scouting u class) about these new metrics and the council commissioner was adamant that these metrics are not for evaluating a unit, they are for "finding discussion topics". Are we experiencing our scouting version of purple math don't test the kids moment?

Size isn't that hard of a metric to hit for a troop. If you have 12 and they are registered you're good to go, the hardest metric for a troop is growth (retention for a pack), but what I am hearing and seeing is that units are not entering their advancement or tracking their outdoor activities. So in your case, where you might have some issues with size and growth you can still look really good if you're data entry is up to date. A small troop that is stable in size year-over-year with good advancement, adult training, and activity recording looks SUPER compared to most other units. I can tell you this for a fact, the bottom 3 units (bottom third for an extended view) in my district have 1 or 0 "gos" in the new metrics. 30% is crazy bad, so so so crazy bad. Is there anyone on the national board or any council boards that have hospitality industry experience? Residential experience? A good rental market is 90% occupancy, hotels are 60% or higher, private campgrounds are 75%. I know we're non-profit here in the land of scouting; but, we have to look at our for profit near peers for guidance.

LOL, I had a coworker who would come to me with very technical questions and she would tell me to assume the position before I could start "mansplaining". The position is the "manspread" which is lean forward, legs spread apart as far as possible, arms resting on legs, fingers crossed. Then she would sigh in despair and take a sip of her coffee and give me the "go ahead, wow me with too much information".

I get that, but sometimes the only way they learn is through doing.

Basically from what I have seen and pieced together a council needs to be about 15000 scouts to be financially viable. I think the issue really is that there are far too many councils, national knows it, talks about it, had a report recommending mergers and consolidations. Everyone is resistant to it. The professionals are resistant to losing their jobs (understandable but doesn't trump saving the program and organization). The volunteers don't want change and far too many don't understand 4 season programming. As an organization and movement we have to grow past an 8 week utilization period for our camps, and our camps need to look at the hotel and for profit camping industry for appropriate usage levels; we have too many properties competing for summer camp dollars and as an organization we don't have any idea on how to run the camps the remaining 44 weeks of the year. I think I met this guy you talk about earlier in the year when the metrics rolled out. Everything about the metrics makes sense except the fact that units are not being forced to comply with data entry, and units still think they can just "not engage" with district or council. In my neck of the woods I would cull the bottom 3 troops every year for a couple years (not packs, I would give them more freedom to figure it out), but I would totally cull the bottom 3 troops for sure. 2-3 years of culling the S-heads who are not running the program and things would change so much for the better.

The files are definitely more than just perverts. My understanding is that the ineligible volunteer list includes the perverts, people who removed from scouting for fighting, drinking, etc ... while at a scouting event. My understanding is that some people also landed in those files and on the banned list from things as innocuous as a volunteer not getting along with professional scouters and being banned from volunteering to make the problem go away.

Scouting is becoming more expensive but it isn't super expensive. One of my units recently got a family back from sports. They had pulled all of their kids and pumped them into baseball and after a year of the costs of organized baseball they came right back to scouting. I think the expensive part of scouting is hidden by bad units and units that are too reliant on district/council based programming. One of the troops that I help with is getting ready to do its big fall campout and the cost for a weekend is currently at $70 a person. I'm struggling to understand why, with our state parks and how cheap it is to camp in them the cost should be more in line with $20 a person (for a 2 night 3 day campout). The council fees are ridiculous. Michigan is $85 a person which is the highest in my neck of the woods. I look across the council line and I have no idea what they are getting for that $85 that we are not getting in my council and we're barely paying a council fee here.

The timeline is definitely fuzzy. National isn't pressuring enough change at the council level, councils are far too independent. As a franchise national does not control market saturation well enough. The Churchill report recommended 100-150 councils; my assessment and the huge improvement in telecommunications since that report make me though we should probably have less than 100 councils.