Abel Magwitch

Very interesting....

Jhankins and Eagle, I am disappointed to say that the shenanigans continue even now. I know this as I am part of a district in a council that is located in a weak city where reaching out to youth is practically impossible anymore. The only way a professional can succeed in my council is to do some fancy finagling of their membership criticals. And any volunteer that gets in their way will be villainized.

My district continues to suffer without many real units. There continue to be no district Boy Scout activities. The district is still without a district commissioner, and the district chairman was handpicked by the DE with no input from the nominating committee.

New units are being formed in schools. They are not traditional units in a real sense, but they will be added to the overall traditional membership counts at the end of the year and counted a second time as LFL units.

My district had a long established troop that was about to die. Nothing has been done to help this unit out. There is no district commissioner or unit commissioners. There is no support from the district. I just saw the Scoutmaster a week ago and asked if the troop was still alive. He told me that he re-registered the troop with three members. He also told me that it was ok because the DE/DD was going to borrow some boys from another troop in order for his troop to have the minimum of 5 members it needed to re-charter. The scoutmaster was also given a spot on the district committee. He feels pretty important now being part of the district leadership even though his troop only has three members left.

Volunteers are still rewarded for keeping quiet or going along with the program. Regional awards and National awards are given to Executive board members because they went along with keeping mum about membership issues. They dont want to hurt scouting by holding those responsible for their actions. It also conveniently keeps their business reputations from being tarnished. Professionals who cheated on membership numbers to make their criticals are promoted and long time executive board members who objected to not making the inflated membership claims known to the community are told to step down by the SE.

From reading many peoples posts here on the Scouter forums, I know that there are good councils out there where real Scouting is happening and boys are being served. I know that there are good and honest professionals out there who are doing a good job, working in good councils in thriving cities where Scouting comes easier. But believe me there are poor councils where if as a professional you have drawn the short straw to be transferred to my council, you are placed in a situation where you must decide is my job worth it? Can I guiltless sleep tonight; have I kept my honor bright? Can I afford to take a stand for whats right and risk losing my job? Or do I turn a blind eye to my morals and do what I have to do make my criticals and keep my job? My previous DE who was promoted to senior DE in another district told me that she knew the problems existed, but there was not much she could do she told me that her family needed the money.

My council got a new SE and the council was supposedly audited. The SE himself showed me that he had some 4,000 members he had to make go away. He told me that the executive board was aware of membership inflation and that it was going to be resolved. Executive board members told me that things were fixed. Too bad they did not come clean and tell the Scouters and the rest of the community what had happened. Instead, council membership dropped by over 4,000 youth members from the year before yet the annual report stated that council had an incredible 5% increase in membership over the past year. Funny how nobody takes the time to review the last years annual report program that was given to them last year at the annual dinner. I do. Council is hiding their membership problems in plain sight. They arrogantly know that the average COR, or donor is not going to even look at last years program. They take council at their word They are Boy Scouts and Boy Scouts are trustworthy. I have noticed this pattern of membership loss every time the council had an SE change. Its been going on since the mid 70s and continues to this day.

I truly envy you good Scouters out there who are part of functional and quality councils and districts. Scouting is being carried out properly. My hat is off to you fine Scouters.

Roundtables should remain roundtables; a place for leaders to share ideas; a place for comradery between leaders; a place to learn about the next Camporee or Klondike derby etc.

In my district, a very good roundtable commissioner finally quit after being told the night of the roundtable that this person wanted to give training, the DE wanted to do re-chartering, etc. This RT commissioner worked hard on planning his roundtables well in advance and felt he was simply being used after being told by the DE that he had other plans for the RT.

If you want training, have a training night. If you want a re-chartering night, do it. But do not simply move in on RT night and tell the RT commissioner that the roundtable will be taken over to do something else. And people want to know why RT programs are in decline. In my council, out of 8 districts, there are only 3 left that still have RT commissioners. Though there is something called a RT on district calendar, it is usually simply a training event or a popcorn pickup.

The core of the roundtable covers program ideas and skills for working with new-Scout patrols, regular Scout patrols, and Venture patrols. Roundtables should focus on program highlights for upcoming months. Roundtables should be fun.

The age old concept of a RT (at least in my council) has become something else for others to use to promote their own agendas.

I have to agree with basementdweller. I too am part of a district; a very small urban district with only 7 troops and maybe 15 packs and a few crews. We have had a DE and DD to "serve" our small district.

As a "volunteer" run organization, it amazes me that these two professional salaries are lumped in with "program". It is not the professional who runs the Klondikes, Camporees, Webelos activities, it it the volunteer. The volunteer provides the program.

Why we have to have two professionals assigned to this small district, both on the payroll, both receiving benefits, yet the district continues to have no program because it is too small. So many times our districts has to participate with another district's activities. Now there are 4 professionals getting paid for an event run by the volunteers.

Nope, Basementdweller is on to something. There is no need for all these professionals on the payroll.

Of course at FOS time, we will be solicited and told that it cost's over $200 per scout a year. And where does this $200 go? To salaries which are conveniently hidden in the "program" section of the budget.

I guess I was a bit stunned to find out that some councils do not offer insurance.

It was never an option in the past, we were always required to purchase the supplemental insurance.

When things were done the old way, (not on-line), the insurance fee was always included on the paperwork. This year it was not. I wonder how many newer units when they re-charter this year will completely miss this altogether. I know the clerk did not offer the insurance to us until we actually questioned the issue.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

This year our troop for the first time registered online. After all the paperwork was printed out, it was turned in to the Scout office. But I noticed that the total fees did not include the customary supplemental insurance fee. The additional $1 insurance fee was always added to the total in the past when we received our re-charter packets.

When our Scout office clerk was questioned about this, she stated that since online re-chartering was a national thing, the insurance was not included. We would have to pay the additional monies for insurance separately if we still wanted it. She also stated that insurance was an individual council matter and not every council across the country offers the supplemental insurance.

This is the first time I have ever heard this. Any thoughts?

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Because it's fun.

Sounds like the council should sign this guy up to run the council's FOS drive.

This SM will soon be chasing away all the parents (and Scouts) from the troop.

I'm with shortridge on this one - time to speak to the cor and institutional head. They alone have say in what they allow or don't allow within thier building. The chartered institution owns the unit.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

http://www.seattlepi.com/specials/scoutslogging/map/

In recent years there has been some substantial logging at my council camp. There have been some major areas clear cut leaving a huge scar in the earth. The council put a cope course in one of these areas. Cope becomes pretty tough with the sun beating down on the kids due to the lack of trees.

What a shame.

Abel

At least in my council, training = $

Abel

Hi Eagle,

I have posted before - there are currently only 5 district committee members in my district who were appointed by the DE, my district no longer has a district commissioner and has not since last February. My district was totally without any district committee until July, the new district chair was appointed by the DE and approved by the council president without any input from our last district nominiating committee (which was also appointed by the DE), (they only met once) - the new district chair was already approved before this last nominating committee was even formed.

Needless to say, our current DE is running the show by handpicking his district volunteers who do not know Scouting.

Abel(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Has anyone out there in the Scouting world ever heard of a nominating committee consisting of 11 members none of which are registered scouters? None of which any current district Scouters have ever heard of?

Has anyone out there in the Scouting world ever heard of making suggestions to the nominating committee through the DE rather than the head of the nominating committee or District chair?

Just curious.

Abel

"Procedure Ninety days prior to the district annual meeting, the district chairman will submit suggestions for members of the nominating committee to the council president for approval.

This committee should consist of three to five members.

The president has the discretion to add or delete names for the nominating committee from the council executive board or the community at large. It is recommended that the council president appoint a member of the council executive board to serve on this committee. In the event of a vacancy in the office of district commissioner, the president may ask the council commissioner to serve on the committee."(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I forgot to add this - in the city where my council resides, during the Scoutreach days, there are county housing complexes. There was a push within my district to get more units started within these complexes. One of the district members at large informed us that they were steering away from churches as sponsoring institutions intead they were going to target these county run facilities as he stated "there is money the council could get from the county if they concentrated their efforts on the county housing complexes. Needless to say, the packs and troops never really existed, but they were a source of youth names for membership numbers. There were a few that actually tried to maintain a unit, but then again, the unit was only open to those who lived within the housing units.

Bottom line in my council, council was not interested in traditional units within the city. They were interested in the additional funding from the county and getting some more fictitious members for the council's membership counts. As I have already stated, exclusion is acceptable by the BSA in my council as long as there are $$ attached to it. The few remaining traditional units in my district received very little service from the council when this all began in the late 90s and it continues today. Currently my district committee only has 5 registered committee members with no district commissioner. New bogus units are being formed complete with paid paraprofessionals hired as Scoutmasters and Cubmasters.

By the way, I am an active COR. My council has chosen to disregard the active COR with the blessing of the executive board.

The BSA should not condone sponsoring institutions excluding members for religious or any other reasons.

Abel

...I find it interesting that the BSA makes it much easier to segregate than to include...

...Don't get where you're comin' from, sherm. In this case the BSA isn't doin' anything, the CO is...

Beavah, the BSA is simply closing its eyes and allowing its chartered organizations to exclude if they so choose. In essence they are washing their hands while still allowing things to happen. Do you not find a problem with the BSA opening the camp for a particular religious group of Scouts while excluding all others? (by the way this only happened once. Now the LDS units camp with the non-LDS units).

I have observed through the years that the BSA will allow many things - As long as it brings in funding.

Here is where I am coming from - The BSA "condones" the exclusion of its members amongst its chartered organizations. The BSA accepts that it's OK for chartered organizations to exclude if they so choose.

Personally, I have a problem with this condoned exclusion the BSA allows, but that's just my opinion.

An old handbook om mine had these words concerning the uniform. These words spoke not about exclusion, rather is spoke about brotherhood. I found it disappointing when I first learned from a professional that it's ok for a chartered organization to exclude boys from their units and I was particularly disappointed when the non-LDS units (which I am a part of) were excluded from their own council camp by the BSA.

This all reminds me of Dr. Suesss story about the Sneeches.

"There is real significance to that khaki uniform. First of all, it shows that you belong."

"You are a member of the largest youth movement the free world has ever seen. It stands for the spirit of true democracy."

"It puts rich and poor on an equal basis in the spirit of brotherhood."

It is my opinion that "an equal basis in the spirit of brotherhood" should bring acceptance to a higher level while taking exclusion out of the picture.

Abel

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Just adding my 2 cents - the BSA allows a charter organization to discriminate. (I know, discriminate is a bad non pc word).

for example - a unit being sponsored by a Catholic church could state that only Catholic boys may join that particular unit. Is this discrimination?

My council has a Hungarian troop where they will only accept members who speak Hungarian. All others need not apply. (They even where different uniforms and follow a different Scout program, yet they are allowed to be registered with the BSA).

There are in school units in my council who will only accept members from within the school. So if Johnny lives next store to Joey, but does not attend Joey's school, he is not allowed to join Joey's Pack. (And how a public school can discriminate is another story altogether.)

This Charlotte church has its beliefs. They are a private organization. It is obvious that they do not accept the beliefs of Mormons. What's the problem? Are they saying something wrong?

On a final note, my council one year added a separate week of summer camp where only LDS units were allowed to attend. Did I agree with this? No, but that is my opinion. But I do find it interesting that my own council decided to discriminate on who could attend this week of summer camp based soley on religion.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I have to agree with BadenP.

Shortridge, thanks for the input. I haven't heard anything about any changes either, though my council has added their own rules from time to time and they usually let you know when you show up to camp.

Abel

My troop has traditionally had a cabin camp in November as a first time camping experience for the new Scouts we recruited in September. The cabin is at our council camp ground. We have always opened the camp to fathers; expecially the fathers of the new Scouts.

With the new youth protection guidelines and training that is now required for registered leaders, has anyone heard anything about allowing non registred fathers to participate at Scout camp? Has there been any new policies or procedures relating to visiting adults being allowed to camp with a troop?

Abel

rules, shmules. In my council, the professionals trump any national rules, regulations, policies and procedures and they have the support of the executive board in which most members don't really know or understand Scouting.

Currently, (and for most of the past year), my district committee only has 6 volunteer members and a district executive. The district committee consistis of a MIA district chair, a popcorn chair, an activities chair, an advancement chair, a camping chair, and a training chair. There is no district commissioner as the last one resigned last February.

The district chair who was appointed by the DE, (yes, appointed. the district nominating committee never had a say in the matter as he was handpicked by the DE and already approved by the council president), is always a no show at district meetings. The district chair cannot be reached as there is no contact number for him.

As I started this post - rules, smules. Proper policies and procedures are no longer followed in my council unless they are convenient for the professionals who are now in charge of this volunteer movement in my council.

Abel Magwitch, COR.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I'm sure that this has been discussed before on the forums, but I will bring it up again.

Can a boy who is just visiting a troop go on a weekend camp while not a member of the BSA?

Here is an example - a boy visits the troop to see if he wants to join that troop. The troop has a weekend camp coming up at the end of the week. Is the visitor allowed to go to camp with the troop? Or does he first have to join the unit?

RememberSchiff,

Please keep this forum informed if you can on the outcome in this matter.

I would like to know how the BSA will come through for this family.

Abel

None.

Popcorn started years ago and was offered as a supplemental help to a unit's fundraising efforts. Prior to popcorn, units did all their fundraising by themselves. If your unit belonged to a chartered organization that supported the unit, there was no need for the unit to require help. But there were units associated with sponsoring institutions that could not financially support their unit. So the BSA stepped in and offered popcorn as a solution.

But the popcorn thing morphed as the BSA professional corps realized that there was money that could be made and many units now believe that they "have to" sell popcorn.

Really, you don't.

My troop has been sponsored by a very supportive church for over 65 years. Our troop has an annual pancake breakfast which supports our troop with enough funds for the entire year. The whole event takes 7 hours from start to finish. We have never had a need to sell popcorn.

And the monies your unit raises belong to the sponsoring institution who actually owns the unit. Should a unit ever fold, the remaining funds in the unit treasury belong to the sponsoring institution.

If you can raise your own funds - more power to you.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Guy, you nailed it right on the head. That old curmudgeon Scoutmaster; giving the professionals a hard time. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

The thing is the professional is a transient. His loyalty is to his job. He will be moving on when he gets promoted to another council. But it is the old loyal SM who the professional is supposed to support. The old SM isnt just complaining; he knows what he needs. He knows how things are supposed to work. The old SM is focused on what the program is supposed to be for the boys. If it werent for serving the boys, there would be no BSA.

If there is anything to say about old curmudgeon SMs is that they have been around for a reason they are successful. They are around because their Troop continues to survive and serve boys while other troops have long folded. Their troop has outlived many young DE's who couldn't cut it.

Instead of a professional complaining about the curmudgeonly behavior of the old SM, the professional should find out why he has been successful so long. What are his methods? Why do boys continue to join the troop?

The old SM has given a lot of his personal time over the years. How many people actually give up part of their vacation to serve boys? And without pay?

The old curmudgeon SM should be revered and respected for his long tenure of dedicated volunteer service doing it for the shear joy and being rewarded by seeing boys become fine men.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

After reviewing my council's annual reports going back to the late 70's, the only time I see huge declines in membership was when a new Scout Executive came to town. Membership declines during these times are 5000 to 8000 members. Then there is a steady increase in membership during the SE's tenure.

It has happened 4 times in my council since the 70's. Facinating stuff. But for anybody in the general Scouting community outside the executive board to notice it, one has to keep last years annual report or have access to annual reports through the years.

thoughts on this?

Indeed Eagle, I agree with your humble opinion. In my State, there are no gun restrictions based on age. It is a situation of a council who does not want to invest in the program for the Scouts. It is a council where we have an abundance of DE's and professional staff that are serving an inflated membership. There is no need for the amount of paid staff in my council. We simply do not have the membership that is being claimed.