Abel Magwitch

I see now how the Great Southwest Council's increased its assets almost two fold in the past decade - they saved on the high cost of food by serving trail food that expired in 2008.

And I have been told that moldy bread won't kill me either. But since good money was paid for a promised quality summer camp program by the council, the moldy hot dog buns were unsatisfactory.

I should have donated them to TX.

F Scouter, give the paying volunteers and their Scouts food that has not expired. The Scouts and their volunteer leaders pay fees and should not have to accept out of date food. Shame on that council.

Quite frankly, I would give the 5 year old outdated philmont food to the pros taking PD 1,2 and 3. Of course the food would be perfectly fine - for the newbie pros.

Supplying non-expired food to Scouts is not perfection, it is providing the Scouts a quality product. Supplying food that expired in 2008, 2009 and 2010 is totally unacceptable.

National likes to throw around words like "quality". It is apparent that Scouters got sick from outdated food.

The council should not serve outdated food and those in charge of making the decisions to supply the Scouts with outdated food need to go back to TX to get remedial training.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

About 5 years ago at summer camp, our troop was issued hot dog buns that were two months old and moldy.

This must be a national trend for the BSA to tell their councils to issue out of date food to save a buck.

Too funny.

http://www.scoutstuff.org/merit-badge-application-card-100-pack.html

Active has two definitions as far as national is concerned. One is a definition that fits the word as most perceive the definition. The other allows national to wash their hands of getting involved with individual situations that may cause them to take a stand that may lead to a pr mess.

Here is how national defines active for being a Webelo:

Webelos Badge, Requirement 2:

"Be an active member of your Webelos den for 3 months (Active means having good attendance, paying den dues, working on den projects)."

Interesting isnt it? National actually defines active as having good attendance and participating with the den. Active is all about participation as far as the Webelos program is concerned.

The same definition of active has been implied for the requirements for Eagle.

But now, being active for the Eagle badge means to be simply registered with your dues paid. The word active becomes watered down in the Boy Scout program and no longer carries the typical webster's definition nor the definition of the Webelos program.

When boys become older and decide to get active in sports, the marching band, etc, it is their choice to do so. But the word active is truly defined. Sports coaches require a boy to be an active participant, requiring the boy making it to the practices and to the games. Band teachers require that the boy make it to the practices and to the games. In these cases, being active is a requirement. It follows the Webelos definition of active having good attendance and working with the group.

Part of Scouting is to teach boys to be responsible, learning to live with your decisions, to show leadership, to do the requirements no more and no less. The same applies to school sports. But in school if you dont show up to practice, dont show up to the games, you wont be in the band or football team too long.

A Scout makes his choice to be active in sports (because it is required to be active) or to be active in Scouting if he wants to be an Eagle (because being an acitve participant is a requirement).

But national has decided to change the definition of active. National chooses to change definitions so they dont have to be active themselves in the program they are supposed to be managing.

Which brings us to the Eagle Board of Review. What is an Eagle board to do? One of their jobs is to make sure that the Scout did what was required of him to earn the badge. And being active is one of the first requirements of the Eagle badge. Being active must be a pretty important.

And if the board finds the Scout was not actively participating in the troop, and deny the Scout his Eagle, the Scout can exercise his appeals and in every case I have witnessed, the Scout will get his Eagle approved by national. And national will not provide the reasons on how they reached their decision.

During the past few years, the national advancement task force (aka the national advancement committee) was asked to define active and they finally produced a definition which many (including myself) disagree with.

There is another active requirement that a Scout must meet to earn Eagle - the position of leadership. If a Scout is acting in the capacity of let's say the Senior Patrol Leader, but he never shows up to meetings and activities to perform his leadership duties, the troop can relieve the Scout from his leadership position and give it to another Scout who does actively participate with the troop. Then the "inactive" Scout will not be eligible for Eagle as he was relieved of his leadership position. And should that Scout turn 18 without being a junior leader for 6 months as a Life Scout, the Scout cannot make Eagle. And it was the Scout's choice to make.

I am sure that a high school coach would relieve the football captain of his position if the boy never showed up to practices or games because he chose to be active with his Boy Scout troop instead.

It truly is up to the Scout to decide which priority is more important to him - whether he decides to perform his duties as a junior leader for 6 months, or chooses to practice football instead of participating with the troop. He really can't do both, but due to nationals new definition of active, he now can.

As I stated before, national needs to drop the "active" requirements from badges of rank.

So much to timeless values and strong character.

(I wonder how national defines timeless values and strong character?)

Abel

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

a scout could attend my council's summer camp, hike to the maid gate and back for four hours and receive 100% credit for completing all required hikes and come home with the merit badge ;-)

national has made a sham of the word active. they should simply remove the requirements all together since they have chosen a senseless definition for the word rather than address those few Scouts who have worked to buck the system.

You will not find any definitions from any legitimate sources such as websters defining active as having fees paid or being registered.

Again, national should simply drop the active requirements altogether rather than making a mockery of the true meaining of active.

my 3 cents.

You see in my council, Scouts were promised that they could get the climbing merit badge. Then once at camp, the camp director decided to then tell the Scouts that there were age requirements. Had to be 14 to climb. Same thing at the rifle range. The summer camp literature stated that Scouts could shoot a 22. Then once they arrived, then they were told that there was a new 13 yr old age requirement to even go to open shoot. Those age requirements are not listed in the mb requirements, the guide to safe scouting nor the summer camp manual. It was simply "surprise" you can't go for the badge.

Of course there was the lack of staff which kept areas closed; motor boats that never entered the water (yet merit badges were earned); fees charged for the cooking merit badge of $8 bucks for the food the scouts were supposed to cook, yet no food was ever secured by the those in charge of the camp, so the scouts simply had to scramble an egg and received credit for the entire cooking part of the badge.

The council is unprepared for summer camp and has been for many years now. Should these Scouts get reimbursed for the council not delivering on their summer camp promises that the Scouts paid for?

Absolutely.

I have written in the past on how my council would be unprepared to host summer camp (for various reasons). In the end, it was the Scouts who did not get the promised program for the fees they paid.

Should the kids get some reimbursement? Depends on if the the council made it clear of the age requirements in their summer camp manual. If there was nothing noted, then yes, the council failed the kids.

Perhaps the young lads who missed out hadn't received their communications merit badges yet. But quite frankly, the well trained summer camp director and staff should not have missed it untill Thursday either.

well it appears that national pros are monitoring the forums. I bet there has been some quick damage control at national on how to address those pesky volunteers asking too many questions.

If I understand what TAHawk stated in his letter to the museum, that the docent's comments were not mentioned. It that is the case then Oooops, looks like national showed a bit of its hand.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I was lucky to have my handbook signed by GBB at the jamboree. I remember standing in line and there was GBB signing handbooks. He had a kid sitting next to him. His job was to draw two green bars through his autograph with a magic marker.

Unfortunately in my council, it is the inner city programs that are being abused by the professionals in order to make their membership quotas.

Great council promotion website. Easy to use with multiple options for searching. How does your council get the word out to the community about the website?

Jtswestark, I have said in my other posts that I know that there are good council's out there where units are served and Scouting thrives. I know that there are good professionals out there doing a fine job. But I do stand behind what I have posted as what is happening in my council. The professional turnover rate in my council is off the charts as new DE's realize that they do not want to be part of the shenanigans. I remember one guy who lasted three months. He called after he had resigned to say he could not stand how the executive staff manipulated the volunteers.

BP, I have truly learned from your candid posts as a former pro who has had an inside view on how things are run at the top. I totally agree with your post above.

One part of your post caught my attention:

"Eamonn's post highlighted some very real and serious problems in the BSA today and yet most volunteers are content to let a small select group in your council set all the policies and make all the determinations of how contributions will be used."

Content volunteers. I have found in my council that the majority of volunteers are rather new to the program and are very inpressionable. They fall for the rhetoric of the pros and believe that the pros are in charge and that they as volunteers really have no say. Ignorance is bliss. Don't tell volunteers that the organization is theirs. It reminds me of the Pixar movie "a bug's life" when one of the villian's cohorts didn't understand why they must attack the ant colony because one ant stood up to them. "it's only one ant". then the villan grasshopper hit his cohort with one piece of grain. Then he opened the grain bottle and buried the cohort as an example of what happens when the whole ant colony figures things out. How many volunteers have been asked to leave when they questioned a council policy?

Our pros make sure that there is no real contact with COR's. they don't tell them that there is some training they should take. Training, if effective, has a way of openening eyes. In my council, a brand new female Cub Scouter was encouraged to take wood badge. The next year, she was in charge of it.

There are old timers in the council who are still active at the boy level. They are outspoken when their boys don't get service. The pros don't like them and steer clear of them. Some have been told off by the pros.

There are the other old timers who hang around Scouting and are given positions as district and council officers. They are no longer active on the boy level. They are well treated by the pros and rewarded for just being yes men. You see them standing up at the council dinner receiving another award yet they have not been involved at the boy level for years.

Our executive staff is well trained in manipulating the volunteers on the council and district level.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

I would be curious to know how many parents of non-scouts even know of the website? Have local council's gotten the word out to their communities that there is such a website? I have seen in my travels around the country that some area council's actually pay for space on billboards - a good place to post a web address. My council once actually had a TV commercial using the mayor of the city to promote Scouting, (what was really funny was in the background of the commercial there were video clips of boys doing really cool stuff like skydiving!)

How well have your council's gotten the word out concerning the BeAScout website?

Shortridge, after taking a few steps back, I do see your point. I do get blindsided by the poor experiences my troop has had over the years with the council. It wasn't always that way, but we have watched a slow progression of a loss of services by the council, yet somehow, the council achieves their quality status and the people who are far removed from the program applaud the fine job the council says it's doing at the annual dinners.

I will stand by just having a policy that for a troop who hasn't made their decision on tentage prior to 30 days will simply have to suffice using the camp's tents. I am totally against additional fines and fees being charged to units who are run by faithful and giving volunteers.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

Nonsense Shortridge, There is more than one week of summer camp. Unless the campsite is extremely small, a troop could still set up their tents and leave the camp's tents alone. I have seen this done before.

If it's that big of a problem, the camp could make it known that if you do not make your choice on using troop tents prior to the 30 days, you have no choice but to use the camp's tents.

But to charge a $30 fine - that is just wrong.

I know at my council camp, it's the council who is always unprepared with program and supplies. Scouts pay their fee and expect the program that was promised by the council. Yet when the council doesn't deliver because they were unprepared with enough staff; program areas closed due to lack of staff or pools being out of service due to a lack of maintenance, don't you think the council is obligated to refund some of the fees they charged?

Doesn't happen.

Levying fines against a troop is just not conducive if you want that troop to support the council with an FOS drive.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

THawk:

you seem to have have found that the previous SE obviously did not have to face any consequences for fraudulent membership in your council. In fact he has been promoted to be the SE of a much bigger council and most likely receiving more pay. Sounds like he has been rewarded handsomely for duping those in your council who gave to Scouting such as United Way and other beneficiaries who gave based on how many youth the council was supposedly serving. Kinda shines a different light on the new unusually trustworthy SE. I am sure he knew that the previous SE got a raise and promotion based on fraudulent membership numbers has he spoken up against his predecessor? Has he alerted national of the problem? Has he alerted the new bigger council of the kind of SE they are getting? I would be willing to be the answer is no.

Think about everyone who fell for an FOS pitch asking for hundreds of dollars in order to serve one Scout. You know those figures are based on executive salaries. I wonder if your council hired additional executives to be on the payroll based on the inflated membership. You know an SE can justify additional pros on the payroll based on the councils high membership.

I truly feel bad for the new council where this guy is gone. I am sure that nobody from the Executive board there was clued in on what this guy did in his previous council. Shame, truly a shame that cheating SEs get rewarded with promotions and raises.

F Scouter asks:

Why it is a problem to perpetuate a phony unit Well F Scouter, you were given some good reasons, the most important by far is that the unit is a hoax.

Here are some other reasons the council can use phantom units to solicit funds using the solicitation that the council serves x amount of youth. TAHawk mentioned 30%. Think of it this way F Scouter, the SE goes to United Way and tells them that the council is serving 25,000 youth. The United Way in turn gives the council $500,000 based on the 25,000 figure. But if SE tells the United Way that the council is serving 17,000 youth, United Way may only give the council $300,000. Those phantom paper units brought in an additional $200,000 from United Way. And when FOS is presented to your unit and the person soliciting from your parents tell them that it costs $250 per Scout, people may be compelled to give more money. But then again since this money mainly goes to pay executive salaries, the question then becomes do we really need this many paid professionals? Maybe there are enough to serve 25,000 youth. Problem is there is only 17,000. Maybe the FOS solicitor should state that it really only costs $150 per Scout.

So the council continues to pay their overstaffed executive corps and everything feels good. Execs are getting their pay checks, good ole boy volunteers get their awards to show off. But something has to lose to all this inflated membership...

So who loses out? Cuts are made in the program. It is the Scouts who lose. They lose because council cannot afford to hire enough summer camp staff. Council cannot afford to maintain the camp. Summer camp fees are going to rise. Sorry Scouts.

Phantom and paper units make things easier for the district officers including the DE's. There are less units to serve yet DEs can earn their criticals based on the high number of units he is supposed to be serving even though they do not exist. Commissioners have less units to visit yet can earn their Awards of Merit and Silver Beavers because they are doing such a fine job serving their distritc's units.

Get the point?

There are so many reasons F Scouter. Problem is that paper and phantom units only seem to serve the adult volunteers who are looking for another award as well as paid professionals who are trying to make their membership criticals. Got to get that quality district award so the SE can get his quality council award. And these awards = higher pay and promotions.

In the end it is the real Scouts who lose; their volunteer leaders lose; their parents lose. All those fees for a promised program and the council fails deliever because they say they have no money. Yet still pros get promoted and receive pay raises and volunteers receive their district and council awards for their noteworthy service, and districts and council are called QUALITY.

(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

a $30 fine for using your own tents? Now that's robbery! what possible reason would there be for a council to charge you $30 dollars for using your own tents?(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)

TAHawk writes - By the way, we also have several "troops" that have not met in dacades - literally - but get rechartered by former Scouts in the CO's because they don't what the dead troop to die. Never meet. But there are no forged names, just phony units.

I am even more curious - how can a dead unit re-charter without at least 5 youth? How can they exist with commissioner oversight? Are you saying that a DE is signing off on the troop's charter? Obviously the DE must know that the troop is dead. Sounds like there is still fraud happening in the council, wouldn't you agree?

So what you stated in your last post - the SE did not get fired; He was not held accountable; he is still working as a high paid SE somewhere else. I wonder if the executive board of his new council is aware of his past. I know if I were an executive board member, I would be upset to find out that the BSA did not tell us that the new SE was inflating membership at his last council.

And how did you hear he went to a small council? Did you ever try to google his name with the words boy scouts? Or are you taking what someone else has said.

I know that my own council has had some membership problems, but the whole thing was simply swept under the rug as if nothing had happened. The only volunteer people who were told of the problem were the council officers. The rest of the Scouting population was never told. And to top it off, the annual report never reported any losses, instead bold claims of membership increases were made instead.

Sounds like your council leadership has done a poor job of serving the traditional Scouts.

I think I finally found the answer to the question is the BSA a religious organization. And it came from a well known fair and balanced source.

HTTP://WWW.FOXNEWS.COM/STORY/0,2933,108666,00.HTML

before you can make commissioner service more effective, you first have to have commissioners to begin with. My district doesn't even have a district commish. but hey, we are a quality district.

TAHawk wrote - One council was a "Quality Council." Two years ago it took a 30% membership drop when it was discovered that the previous SE systematically registered phantom youth and chartered phantom units.

I am curious, a 30% loss? That's a lot of phantom youth. Did that SE face any consequences? Did he lose his job because of the fraud? Was the rest of the council informed of the situation? Or was it simply swept under the rug? Was there anything in the next year's annual report that showed a 30% loss?

Wermy,

I also find it interesting that the website that this Scouting in China uses is a California company which was sold to another American company,the active network. Now why would the Scouting in China group be using an American company to get themselves on the web? I wonder if any of the founders of clubspaces are involved in American Scouting? hmmm