David CO

I guess other programs can claim they build character but do they really? It's not just character but it's the chance to lead, grow and learn. You don't get all of those in sports or other programs right? There's only one team captain. Many of the other youth organizations are not run by the youth so bsa has that going for it. I'm the last person to be giving marketing advice. I'm just going off of what I know people around me look to scouts for.

Yes, they do.  Really.

One of the problems in marketing scouting is that many of our scouters insist that scouting should be a boys favorite activity, and won't settle for it playing second fiddle on a boys list of activities. I think this is a mistake.

A good marketing campaign should show boys doing some other fun activity or sport,  and then show them changing into a scout uniform and going to a scout meeting.  The message should be, "You can do scouting, too."

Well, None took me up on it. I guess they thought it would be habit forming.

 

Actually, I never did ask. I had a relative in the Benedictine order who I was on the verge of calling. Never needed to follow through. My scouts were mostly Protestant or unchurched and wouldn't have a foundation for the fears that you seem to be so intimate with, DCO. 

 

In PA, sisters from some orders are avid sportswomen. Sister John Paul Bauer gained a notoriety after her diocese posted a picture of her with her prize buck. Evidently some activists took umbrage of the hypocrisy of Christian clergy killing wild game. They clearly missed St. Peter's vision to "take, kill, and eat" from the cornucopia of the Lord's provision. Regardless, the story made me come up with one of my favorite puns:

"Why did Sr. Bauer leave a space for her whiskey in her gun locker ammo shelf? ... She wanted it to be lead by the spirit."

My fifth grade teacher wouldn't have needed a rifle or ammunition.  That nun could have taken down a prize buck just with her icy glare.

Welcome to my world. The second worse thing I've experienced as a scouter was having to tell young women that a trip was not available to them for lack of moms to go backpacking with them.

 

That was before I joined the council venturing committee and learned to build a depth chart: women from other units, older sisters, college age Girl Scout leaders, former venturers, friendships from Wood Badge, nuns, single women, ex-military, scout moms whose boys no longer wanted them around, etc ... Yes, it felt weird being a middle aged married guy propositioning women to come for a weekend in the back country, but if it was a choice between weird or rejecting, l could get used to the wierd.

 

As to the girls affected, mine came up with a plan B for the following week and recruited two moms.

Did you say nuns?  

No, no, no.  A thousand times...no.  All of my Catholic school boys will quit if we invite the nuns on our camping trips.  It sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.

When my school does Outdoor Education, which is co-ed, most of the volunteer parents are men. We get away with it because most of our teachers are women. 

I don't know if it is because the moms are less adventurous, as others have claimed, or if it is simply that moms of that age often have other youngsters to care for at home.

I can say that some of the women teachers are pretty vocal in the teacher's lounge about the fact that they don't enjoy going on Outdoor Education. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't a requirement of the job.

I don't think we could run a co-ed Outdoor Education program if we had to rely solely on volunteers.

I can easily envision a scenario where a unit with a conservative religious Chartered Organization must choose between leaving the girls behind or canceling a trip for the boys because there are no female leaders available. Imagine the complaints we will be hearing if they leave the girls behind.

I too have heard that around Council about new YPT rules coming , i.e., if the Dads accompany their daughters, the lack of female leaders on an outing would not be an issue. Anyway, that's yet another rumor.

BSA is not the only organization to have youth protection policies.  Chartered Organizations have them, too. Even if BSA were to allow a co-ed group of children go camping without a female leader, there is no guarantee that the CO would allow it.  It may still be an issue for many units.

Eagledad,

Others have voiced opposition to OA without being anti-male.  I disagree with OA, but I agree with all-boy scout units.  I don't see any connection between the two issues.

If you think there is a connection, could you please explain it to me.

ChristianDad doesn't actually tell us much about how well the unit's expectations were communicated to scouts before the Senior Patrol Leader elections.

We do not encourage OA in our Troop for most of the reason already stated.

 

1. It is a good ole boys club
2. Pulls the top Scouts out of our unit
3. In our council at least, very poorly run
4. Does not allow females (we have a female Scoutmaster)
5. Not real thrilled with the ceremonies and Native American mimicry
6. The Ordeal looks like hazing
7. Looks like what we tell the scouts they cannot do - secret organization, hazing, exclusion etc.

That all being said, I have seen councils where it looks very well run and very open

I don't understand why Snow Owl was given a negative 1 for his reply.  The OP specifically asked to hear from scout leaders who don't support OA.

It wouldn't be fair to the new IH if I hung around. People would be coming to me to second guess all of his/her decisions. That wouldn't be right.

When my unit was formed, in the 1980's, we were specifically told (both verbally and in BSA literature) that a troop does not have to use all of the methods of scouting.  

Scouting has changed a lot in 30 years. It was much less centralized back then. Troops had a lot more leeway to improvise the program. Oh well. 

I decided about a month ago that I will be stepping down at the end of this school year. It has more to do with athletics than scouting. I just don't have the same energy level I used to. So, my unit will be getting a new IH.

I don't know if the unit will remain with the Athletic Department, if it will be put in with the parish youth ministry, or if it will disappear altogether. It's not my decision. 

I had a good run. I'm glad I did it.

That may be your opinion, and you are entitled to feel that way, but BSA has never said that. In fact, they have often said the exact opposite.

Have you ever read the BSA literature about "In-School Scouting" that BSA was sending out to schools in the 1980's. It specifically said that a scout troop is a "mix and match" program. The Chartered Organization may utilize as much or as little of the scouting program as it wishes.

You don't even have to go back that far. Read some of the pamphlets they are currently sending about STEM scouting.

Those of us who have been in this game for a while know that BSA has always been much more flexible with its Chartered Organizations' use of the scouting program than most of the die-hard scouters would like.

My experience is things get muddied because people purposely create mud to obscure their actions..  

 

Similar, discussions fail when people are set to do it their own way. 

 

If your COR wants to create different non-BSA requirements to support a different non-BSA rank, go for it.  Just tell your scouts that your troop doesn't use BSA advancement and chooses to use your own advancement program.  Be honest and open.  Then, I wouldn't argue with you and I could understand.  

 

But if you claim credit for BSA advancement and ranks, follow BSA.  

Yes Fred, we are honest and open. I believe in transparency in both our program and our finances. I have said this many times.

Should a unit with a 1 year commitment on its POR's make this fact known?  Yes, I believe it should. I have no reason to believe that the unit and Scoutmaster in this thread didn't make this fact known from the very start. 

Even if the scout didn't know about it before he joined the unit, he certainly must have learned about it long before he was approaching eagle rank. I am sure he knew.

The scout had plenty of time (several years) to switch to a different unit with 6 month POR's, as is more to his liking.  He didn't do that. He chose instead to remain in the unit all the way up to his EBOR, and then complain to council.

I think honesty and openness goes both ways. If a scout has an issue with a unit policy, he and his parents should be forthcoming about it from day one. They shouldn't wait until his EBOR and ambush the unit leaders.

Yes Fred, I think you would argue against the CO, even if its policies were as transparent as glass. 

Councils and CO's are often adversaries.  You council types make it so.  This tread is just one illustration of it. There have been many others.

Why would anyone assume that a CO can only enforce its policies with the "ignorance and submission" of its scouts?  Aren't you now being a bit condescending toward the scouts?

What reason do you have for believing that there aren't parents and scouts in this unit who completely agree with the Scoutmaster on this matter?  

Council types need to step down out of their ivory towers and address the issues between the councils and CO's.  All of this condescension doesn't help.

I think you are being a bit condescending, Fred, when you assume that a unit must be acting on a "whim" when it sets its POR responsibilities.  The fact that it doesn't line up with advancement requirements doesn't in any way indicate that it was done on a whim.  The unit may have a very good reason for it.

Council types do have a tendency to speak in a condescending tone to the Chartered Organization and its officers.  It is not attractive.

In an ideal world, the CO and the council would have had each others back. The unit would have approved the rank advancement, and the council would have told the scout to obey his Scoutmaster and do the 3 months service.  But we don't live in an ideal world.

Councils and CO's are often adversaries.  The council types want to deny the CO's legitimate ownership and control over the unit.  The unit retaliates by thumbing their noses at the council and ignoring their rules.  It happens all the time.  I just wish it didn't have to take place in front of the children.

My experience is things get muddied because people purposely create mud to obscure their actions..  

 

Similar, discussions fail when people are set to do it their own way. 

 

If your COR wants to create different non-BSA requirements to support a different non-BSA rank, go for it.  Just tell your scouts that your troop doesn't use BSA advancement and chooses to use your own advancement program.  Be honest and open.  Then, I wouldn't argue with you and I could understand.  

 

But if you claim credit for BSA advancement and ranks, follow BSA.  

Who said anything about creating a non-BSA rank?  What nonsense.  You guys are much to focused on rank.

A POR is not a rank.  Yes, the unit can create its own unique POR.  There is no rule prohibiting it.  Some BSA literature actually encourages it.

If a POR matches up with advancement requirements, that's fine.  If it doesn't match up, so what?  It doesn't have to.

My point is that the council has no right to tell a unit to have its POR match up with the advancement requirement.  It does or it doesn't.  

Ownership is the incorrect word. The CO does not own the unit. The unit is chartered to the CO. The CO owns the assets of the unit, however the unit is still a BSA unit. The CO does not have the authority to add or subtract to the requirements for advancement. The CO might not provide a good program but that is quite different.

Not true. The CO does own the unit.  BSA does not own the units.  

A CO licenses the BSA methods and materials from BSA for use within its youth program.  The trademarked methods and materials belong to BSA, and the unit is still owned by the CO.

Yes, ownership is the correct word.

 

I'm talking about the adult leader application that we've all signed multiple times.  

 

What you described in your posts does not match the intent or explicit content of BSA publications.

 

But each to their own.  I choose to follow the program I put my name under.  Per BSA GTA if a scout completed the time, he's completed his POR.  There can be reasonable extensions, but a six month duration made into a year is not reasonable.  It's doubling the expectation.  

No Fred, that is simply not true.  

BSA rules do not say that a Chartered Organization must tailor its program, or its POR's, to match up with the advancement requirements.  You are just making this stuff up.

The CO owns the unit.  The CO can create and eliminate POR's at will.  The CO can set its own requirements for POR's.  The CO can set the length of service for POR's.

In fact, a CO also has the right to decide what camping opportunities it offers to its scouts.  A CO could have its troop do only cabin camping (if it wanted to), which would exclude all of its scouts from advancement.  It would be a terrible idea, IMO, but the CO has the right to do it.

A CO could charter a unit solely to take advantage of BSA's STEM program, for example, and not do any camping at all.  Again, I think this would be a terrible idea, but the CO has the right to do it.

Neither the written rules or the spirit of the rules require the Chartered Organization to give its scouts a program that would allow its scouts to advance in rank.  The CO owns the unit. It is their decision.

It is not adding to the requirements.  It has nothing to do with the advancement requirements.  You are trying to make the tail wag the dog.  A POR should not exist just to meet an advancement requirement.  The length of service should depend on the needs of the unit, not the advancement requirements.

You guys are much too focused on advancement and the eagle scout rank.

So ... You expect the scouts to fulfill their commitments.  Yet, you put your signature on a BSA application that says you choose to lead and represent BSA's program.  BSA clearly documents the requirement is fulfilled at six months.  Done deal at that time.  Not to pick a fight, but isn't there a contradiction there.  Do I say, but not as I do? 

No contradiction here, Fred.  That is not what the charter agreement says.

Things are very different where I come from.  We feel that it is important that boys learn to complete the tasks they undertake.  They should finish what they start.

If a scout seeks a POR with a 1 year responsibility, then he should finish out the whole year.  No quitting and no shirking.  Finish the job.

It is certainly true that I am not representative of this group of scouters on scouter.com.  Then again, this group of scouters on the forum is not very representative of scouters out in the real world.

Only about 4% of scouts are eagle scouts.  The percentage of eagle scouts on this forum is much higher.  The percentage of scouting parents on this site whose sons are eagle scouts is also much higher than average.

Consequently, people on this forum tend to identify more with the scouts who are pursuing eagle scout rank.  I tend to identify more with the other 96% percent.

I think scouters in the real world are more conservative, more religious, and more closely aligned with their Chartered Organizations than are most of the folks on this site.  I'm with them.

Happy Mother's Day. 

The Catholic Church does not have a national policy setting group either, at least as far as the BSA is concerned. There's the NCCS, of course, but they don't set policy for the Church.

Is that so?  The units formerly owned by the Knights of Columbus might be surprised to hear it.

BSA is not a wholesaler.  It is retail.  While it may be true that the scout is the ultimate consumer of BSA's product, BSA should not ignore the retailer.