DeanRx

No offense Trelienne... but how many MALE leaders did you EVER have in your GSUSA unit?

4 hours ago, mashmaster said:

Anyone else having this issue in their troop?  Our current troop leaders seem to have a very big hand in the new troop and IMHO too much so.  The new troop is supposed to operate with it's own leaders and PLC.  It shouldn't be a troop that exists to just do what the boy troop PLC decided to do.

This is a big concern for the folks in our troop, the SM, ASMs and Committee Members (along with COR) have discussed and continue to discuss it.  We have several points of view on BSA4G units from "its great" to "this is the end of scouts".... but the real rub is IF our CO moves forward with forming a parallel female unit... where does the leadership come from?

There is a fine line between offering support, in the form or meeting space, shared gear, and adult leader manpower.... But our support staff (ASMs and committee members) are sometimes spread thin supporting the troop.  Example - it is sometimes a challenge to have enough committee members at a regular weekly meeting to get a set of three to do BORs for boys wanting them.  Two weeks ago, I had to step in to attend a troop campout because one ASM had an emergency at work and could not stay the entire weekend.

The concern of many adults in our troop is IF we start a female troop (or help others do it).... how much of a time / talent drain is there going to be from the original unit?

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

She isn't a member of the troop. She is, as you state, a tag along. Same rules should apply that would govern any other non-member of the troop that happens to be on site during a troop event.

 

Correct. Not the troop's responsibility any more than a boy that was a tag along non-member of the troop.

So, can you show me in BSA guidelines / G2SS / YPT or any other place that states we are only responsible for scouts IN OUR OWN UNIT ?  You state that because she isn't a member of the troop, she is not the troops responsibility?  Ok maybe...

So, if I'm an adult leader chaperone at a weeklong summer camp... and I see a YPT violation involving a camp staffer and a youth (gender does not matter), but that youth is NOT a member of my unit, its not my problem?  But, according to BSA - I'm expected to act as a mandatory reporter...

If I KNOW said female youth IS registered with BSA in a unit (just not my unit) - and she shows up at a BSA unit function (i.e. Patrol meeting in a park), that as registered adult leaders, we have no responsibility to her?  Its either a must have a female leader rule, or its not.  I fail to see how someone can wash their hands of the situation just because the youth is NOT a registered member of your specific unit.

If there is published guidance on this... I'd sure love to see it.

Dean

I'll add to the mess with this....

Co-Ed Cub pack with limited leadership has a family campout planned.  Maybe realistic, maybe not... but IF the pack cannot wrangle up at least ONE registered, female leader over the age of 21....

Do you cancel the trip?  Tell half your pack (all the girls) that they can't go on the family pack campout?  Fudge the rules and say "well, there's a couple unregistered moms along.... that meets the spirit of the rule"?  Do you hurry up and submit an adult application for one of the moms (that may or may not have a completed background check and current YPT by the campout?

I don't really disagree with the need for a female (of any type) on an overnight with female youth.  Why the heck can't it just be "One registered adult over 21 years old and one other adult - one of which must be female is female youth are involved - for any overnight activity"  and "One registered adult over 21 and one other adult over 21 (gender immaterial) for all non-overnight scouting activities"

Seems that would fix a LOT of the problems.  I still don't agree with the double standard of two female leaders are OK for male youth, but not vice versa... but I understand why some want a female for female youth rule.

Dean

2 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

No, again, the OP asked about a registered female cub that was a tag along. G2SS refers to members of the troop (e.g. your quote, "every unit serving females)." A tag along, even one registered as a female cub, is not a member of the troop.

 

Hawkwin-

 

I never specifically said a CUB girl... say you got a boys troop and a girls troop.  Sister A is a registered member in the girls troop.  She tags along to the public park for her brother's patrol meeting that happens to be attended by only 2 male adult leaders over 21 (which is another dead horse issue that needs continued beating)...

So, must the adults call in a female registered adult?  Ask the young lady to leave the immediate area of the park? Or is it of no concern of theirs because even though she is a BSA registered youth.... she doesn't "belong" to THEIR unit, so not their responsibility ?!?!

I'll do you one better.  Sister is over 16, drives kid brother to the patrol meeting.  When they go to leave, she is going to give kid brother and one of his friends a ride home from patrol meeting.  Does she require a registered, female, adult leader in the car with her?

The rules are well intended, but impossible to follow in real life situations.

Dean

 

I have no problem with background checks... for "active" adult leaders.  The issue I take is the fact that even if you sign folks up as MB counselors, then a couple things happen:

1) The council will put them on the roster... they may or may not actually be willing to be a MBC.  So, you're screwing up one roster to circumvent a poor policy

2) You've obviously not served as a committee chair at recharter time.  I have.  The LAST thing you need is a bunch of registered adults who are not really registered and not really active to try to get rechartered.  Its hard enough to get the actual active youth and adults done correctly with BSA's so non user friendly interface.  Add on top of it that national is now going to sit on your re-charter until to bride / conjole / threaten these non-active adults to complete YPT?

If I happen to show up at ONE baseball practice for my son and the coach needs an extra dad to shag balls in the outfield and he asks me... I don't have to register or do a background check with the youth baseball league.  The coaches and assistant coaches do... because they are with the youth at practice / games / in the dugout / etc...

Its quite the deterrent when a new parent shows up to a day hike and gets told... hey, I need you to fill out this form, let us do a background check and go online and do this 45 min training before I can let you go on a hike with us...

8 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Eventually the passion and energy of the new program will settle down and balance back to the quality of program content. I’m curious how the numbers will fall. I believe family scouting will change the present troop program a lot. Not so much in written program structure, but more of how the adults will interrupt implementating the program structure. Personally, I believe the troop program will morph closer to a Webelos III. But, if that style of program keeps the parents more energized, then a Webelos III may not be bad when National’s main objective is maintaining BSA numbers. 

We’ll see.(I need a popcorn eating emoji)

Barry

 

 

Barry, as a non pro scouter (I don't know if you get paid to wear the tan shirt or not).... this is what concerns a lot of long term volunteers...

BSA4G is not a bad thing.  Especially IF both boys and girls have a CHOICE in what type of unit they participate in.... some will want gender separate, some might want gender mixed.  IMHO, BSA national could have accomplished this in a much more constructive way:

1) Make Jr Venture crews . They were /are already co-ed... just take the program down to the grade school level and let the girls play too.  Change the upper ranks of Venturing to mirror Boy Scouts (Star / Life / Eagle- we already have changed the oath and law to be the same across all platforms).... viola - a path for girls to get Eagle rank without stepping on the toes of traditionalists and those who (rightfully so) claim that boys need a space for just boys.  Problem solved.

2) Family Scouting = YUCK.  We either believe in the program or we do not!  Per Baden Powell and later per Green Bar Bill, Scouting is not, nor should ever be ABOUT THE FAMILY.  The aims of scouting are not to exclude the family, but the ARE supposed to help form boys (youth) into independent men (adults).  We already have HUGE helicopter parenting problems within BSA.... family scouting only encourages this behavior in both adults and youth.

I respectfully submit that your claim of " Personally, I believe the troop program will morph closer to a Webelos III. But, if that style of program keeps the parents more energized, then a Webelos III may not be bad when National’s main objective is maintaining BSA numbers." is EXACTLY at the heart of all that is WRONG with BSA currently.

If we are not teaching selfless service and using the patrol method, then its fitting that the name of the organization is changing too... because we are no longer SCOUTING as it was intended.  If national's goal is to maintain / increase numbers by allowing the troop program to morph into Webelos III, then the BSA is already dead.

Youth (both boys and girls) want LESS intervention by adults in their outdoor activities, not more.  As a parent, I can appreciate appealing to the parents....

But its not supposed to be about the adults wants / needs.... its supposed to be about the youth - or at least at one time it was...

Dean

4 minutes ago, qwazse said:

There is a belief in the inherent risk to females of all-male leadership (relative to the risk to males of all-female leadership) ... that two-deep leadership will not be sufficient in that context. It really doesn't matter how valid that belief is. Proof to the contrary is non-existent. Agressively litigation thrives in that domain.

Proof to the contrary is non-existent?  Maybe so... but can you show any proof that confirms the fear is valid either?  Is there some study out there that BSA national based the "thou shall bring an adult female" rule when female youth are involved?  Are females inherently at higher risk for abuse when the adults are all male?  If this is indeed true (scientifically), then why the hell would BSA even risk allowing girls in the groups in the first place ?!?!  The rule should be all female units must only have all female adult leadership.

Seems to me its a selling point to folks that are not already part of BSA, but might think about enrolling their daughter.  "See, she'll be fine out in the woods... we'll even make sure a female adult goes along on any all outings she participates in..."

When the rules are made solely out of fear of litigation, then it becomes absurd... which is what has been achieved.

Not to go off topic... but I find it ironic that national has an official position that states they would prefer no or at least minimal fundraising for the Eagle Project.... yet the scouter magazine had an online article not too long ago spotlighting an Eagle project a lad had completed to place a fountain statue memorial to a classmate in a park.  The scout raised over 15 K for the project ?!?!?

 

Like a great many things, BSA national can't seem to keep from contradicting themselves...

But, when you register every possible adult... there is a nice fee that national collects... and they can force all adults to take the online YPT (even if all they ever do in scouting is drop their kid off) or else threaten to hold up the recharter.

Seems its a move to increase registration fees, mandate training compliance, all window dressed as increased concern for safety.

I agree if you are going to chaperone a unit to summer camp with presumably 99% of the kids will not be your own offspring, we need some due diligence and background checks are supported.  If you are talking about a mom or dad who are showing up to help chaperone a day hike or a MD class in a room at the church or a one hour long patrol meeting at the local park... and they do this once a year, why on earth do we need to register them, make them do the online training and PAY to register as a leader with BSA ?!?!?

Dean

My two largest concerns with the new training:

1) The new Scouts First Hotline.... might as well call this dial 1-800-witchhunt.  Remember, if it gets to council... their job is to protect the brand and mitigate liability of the corporation.  It is NOT the best interest of the scouts involved.  Its kind of like getting HR involved in a workplace dispute between coworkers.  Its not about resolution as much as its about making sure BSA national won't get sued.  God forbid a unit leader hears something on a campout, says "hey knock it off, we don't talk like that to each other and here's why... x,y,z..." and then a fellow adult or other scout on the outing decides it was more offensive than that and calls in to the hotline.  Now both 'offender' and registered adult will likely be defending their actions to a paid scouter at council who's most likely course of action is to tell them both that their time in scouting is over.  Better to cut bait on a couple members as a means to mitigate any chance of a lawsuit by whomever might be the slightest bit offended.

2) The "mandatory reporter" designation in YPT.  And the subsequent laundry list of "must report" offenses.  So one kid gets mad at another and says "stop acting so gay" or "don't be a little bitch".  That MUST be reported to council because it falls under discriminatory speech based on gender, orientation, ethnic background, etc... ?!!??

The new YPT expectations leave ZERO room for unit level adult leaders to correct / train / guide / educate youth when they mess up or make an off-hand comment.  Our expectation is to report.  McCarthyism at its finest.  I guess they could re-brand the new YPT standards as "Salem Witch Hunt BSA".  The problem with the standards as currently written is that the "offended" gets to decide what is offensive and most everything is a must report to the council level.  Hope council hires a few more pro's to field the call influx.

Dean

Anyone know of any additional guidance from national on how to abide by the rules and still run a unit?

1) regardless of any personal feelings on BSA4G, why is there specific requirements for at least ONE adult leader to be female if female youth are involved?  There has never been a requirement for a minimum of one male leader when a all boys unit meets / camps / etc... I had a den mother and assistant den mother and it was never questioned.  What about gay youth?  Do we need to have a least one gay adult leader if any youth in the unit are openly gay?

2) What about "family scouting"?  If patrol has a patrol meeting at the park (all male unit) and sister tags along (who happens to be a female registered youth)... can the patrol still meet?  Or must there be at least one female registered leader?

3) As we are all mandatory reporters now... what liability do we assume if we do not report?  If a scout uses a racial / gender / orientation slur... can we correct them, discuss why its inappropriate? or must it be reported to council?  Because if it goes to council, the youth will likely be kicked out... plain and simple.  And its not a stretch to think that youth (especially boys) aged 11 to 17 might slip up once in awhile ?!?!  I've physically jumped between scouts on more than one occasion to prevent / quell a disagreement that was about to become physical.  Do I call council claiming assault now?  Do we call the cops?

Seems like we now operate in an environment where youth are expected to be perfect and never mess up... and as leaders we are on the hook to report it instead of teaching / coaching / allowing youth to learn from their mistakes...

Anyone know how to navigate these waters?  Because it used to be fairly clear... BSA national seems to only stir up the muddy bottom and then stand back in silence.

Dean

I've read it, have a copy and often recommend it to a few parents.... it makes some great arguements for WHY we have such a heli-parent problem in this country. As someone who works with / employs college aged kids and our SM is a college professor... I can tell you first hand the spill over parenting from the "fear" point of view has in a young adult's life.

 

IMHO - Last Child in the Woods should be mandatory reading for ALL parents of scouts.

 

Dean

I agree with the comment that you can't save a kid from their parents... happens in other youth activities too. I don't know if or what it says to other scouts that actually do the work? Maybe part of their learning process is that life isn't fair. Maybe its understanding that just because another scout wears the same rankas they do (in this case Eagle) - it doesn't always mean the same work was put into the achievement. To me - the Eagle (or any rank for that matter) is a matter of personal pride in the work done to achieve a goal. In scouts, as in life, some people will attain more while doing less for it and others will work their butt off to manage to scrape by. Ultimately, thats a good lesson for youth to take away from scouts too.

 

It would be nice if their was some magic metric that could accurately measure the leadership of a scout. If you can come up with it, you can market it to large corporations and make HUGE money, IMHO. Is the scout who has disorganized meetings, and barely competes as SPL at camporees with a motley crue of 'Bad news Bears' types of scouts any more or less a leader than an SPL that has a high functioning ASPL / PLs and really good "followers" in each of the patrols and basically doesn't have to do much leading or managing because the patrols pretty much run themselves? Which of those SPLs are the better "leader"? Which of those boys "deserves" to be called an Eagle more than the other?

 

Dean

They don't really fit a standard raingutter... the boys would have to make the catamarans towards the inside of the rig to fit. However, BSA sells a blow up (mini pool type) raingutter kid that it fits.... its actually worth the trouble to invest in a couple of those for your pack. They are much more stable than a raingutter on a set of saw horses. IMHO

TAHAWK, Sounds like a local problem for you. Just got back from a week of camp as an ASM, I signed a ton of blue cards as did the SM and other ASMs. From what I saw at camp, most of the MB counselors were young, but knew their stuff.

 

WE had several scouts (including my son) who came home from camp with partials either because they failed to complete the prerequisites PRIOR to going to camp, or the camp didn't have time or the correct facilities to complete a given requirement. Swimming was one of those MBs, as the camp was a lake only place and was not deep enough for safe surface or safe dock diving... all scouts in swimming MB got a partial - becuase the lake level was low this year.

Kudos to officer Hurst... Great area and Great council... Schiff , you from there? I grew up in Hastings and spent several summers at Camp Augustine on the Platte River....

Do what you are comfortable with. We are all volunteers. There should be no expectation, nor should you assume responsibility, for someone else's child with allergies. We have scouts that are REQUIRED to have an adult family member on outings with them (i.e. Autistic). If you feel comfortable taking on that challenge, by all means do. I am a licensed healthcare provider and if the food allergy is that severe - I'd opt for a famlity member to accompany and they cook their own stuff.

 

I agree with the poster above that speaks of the risk for cross-contamination. We can try to accomodate, but its not mandatory that you take on responsibility for EVERY special situation that arises.

 

Dean

Not the kind of thing I wanted to read 4 days before sending my son out on his first backpacking trip with his troop.

 

I understand your concern, but in reality the largest risk ANY of us takes on ANY outing is getting in the car and driving to our destination.

I agree it is poor form, however - it goes on probably more than you would think. I have attended district and council dinners (adult award / pat me on the back / see my nifty kilt I made to go with my adult scouter wanna-be 3rd world general uniform). Several had scouts (both Eagles and non) in attendance as color guard and buffet servers / busboy type taks. They have had a cash bar at some / others have been 'dry' (non-alcohol) events. Additionally, our council has at least one to two Scouts night at the Padres games.... they serve alcohol at the stadium. Some of the scouters have a beer, others do not. While I think it was ppor form, I don;t see a huge issue with it (even if it was a 'scout function') because presumably every scout there was under the direction / care of his own parent / guardian. Same as at the baseball game. I don;t condone it, but I don't see a big deal about it. The big deal comes in when you have a scouter that is responsible for scouts under his / her care and they choose to consume alcohol. I agree its best to leave the booze alone anytime there is youth around, but you going to a dinner with your family and having a drink is no different than doing so when you go out to a regular restaraunt, IMHO. Beer at summer camp, adults drinking on a unit campout an then driving kids home, I see as a much bigger deal. Its poor form, but in the gray area of G2SS. heck, maybe they should have it for the FOS presentations.... it would make them more bearable, and likely increase the donations Dean

"Deserve" the Tiger rank... Hmmm, thats a tricky question. As a CM for 3+ years on a couple of occasions, I had parents (usually a DL or ADL) broach the idea with me that a scout in their den was not active and thus did not participate enough in the den activities to complete the rank requirements, yet the parent of the scout had signed them off. I even had one parent go so far as suggest that to award a scout the rank when everyone "knew" he hadn't completed the requirements "cheapened" the award for the other boys....

 

Here's the sticky part. In Cub Scouts - the requirements in the book clearly state that the scout "Does their best" to complete the requirement, the parent signs off and the DL records the acheivement. There is NO provision that the scout MUST do the acheivements at a den meeting or with the rest of the den (although that is how a good majority of requirements get done). There is no Scoutmaster conference or Board of Review in Cub Scouts like we have in Boy Scouts to review the acheivements and make sure the scout has mastered the tasks or even actually done them. Its an honor system - if the parent says they did it and the parent is willing to sign-off, then the scout did the requirement - PERIOD.

 

It sucks that some parents would sign off on rank acheivements that their son hasn't done, but that is between the parent and the kid. Any intervention you might try to make as a DL, ADL, or CM would likely fall of deaf ears anyways. Finally, as I told the parent who said I was "cheapening" the award's value for the kids who actually did do the requirements?... Na... they know what its worth to them as they did their acheivements. The only way their son would know for sure is if their son heard it from the parent that so-and-so didn't do all the requirements... I put that bad parent move right up there with the parent that would sign-off when the kid didn't actually do it... so its sort of a stones in glass houses thing to me. Besides, how do you really KNOW the kid didn't do the requirements with his family?

 

To me - this is a case of enjoy this families company when they show up and participate. If they are paying dues and no-show, then its their $ they have wasted. Take pride in what YOUR son has / is doing to earn their rank and pride in knowing no corners were cut in their work towards rank. The rank will mean more to them if they actually worked for it. The scout who's parent is signing off without actually doing the work has a lot larger issues to face at some point in life than a few glossed over Cub Scout acheivements.... be glad your scout is part of the former and not part of the later... it will serve them well in life in the long run.

 

Dean

 

I would be cautious about crossing early... Do you want your 10.5 year old in there mixing it up with 16-17 y/o? Huge age difference. It makes it a ripe envorionment for being bullied. It might turn him off to Boy Scouts if the troop is off doing things that he is not physically up to doing yet (i.e. 10 mile packpack trip for a 10-11 y/o is pretty demanding).

 

I don;t want to be a sick in the mud, but as an ASM, I tend to agree with your older son's SM. I would advise to find ways to make Web II more exciting (i.e. WEB only den campouts, some more challenging camp activities / etc...) that will prep him for Boy Scouts and keep him interested.

 

An early entry into Boy Scouts can be just as bad as treading water in Webelos... Many boys while ready on paper with the right requirements completed are not physically, nor emotionally ready to take on a sometimes rougher boy-led environment. Unless the troop he will be bridgeing to is not boy led (there are plenty out there that are Web III, IMHO....) - I'd say enjoy Web II. Go on WEB only campouts, give the WEB II's jr leader status in the pack. All these things will get them ready and make them more effective Boy Scouts. One of the worst things that could happen is you put him in early, he gets in over his head and then a parent has to step and "fix" a situation... That is a receipe for disaster. Your son would already be viewed by the other boys as the smallest in the group, then he would have "mommy" or "daddy" fixing things... thats just bad all around. Best to hold him back a little and make sure he is over prepared, than to send him forward, perhaps prematurely, to face challenges he is not ready to tackle.

 

Dean

 

 

dang double posts... almost everytime !

Dean

 

We charge $15 / month dues. You can advance pay or go month to month if you choose. However, the last line on ANY permission slip to go on ANY monthly campout or outing is a line to be initalled by the treasurer. It states that the lad is up to date and paid in full for their dues. If not - they cannot go on the campout - period. That solves the problem with being cash poor at time of recharter. They pay installments every month along the year, or they don't get to participate in troop activities. Its a good incentive for the lad to coordinate with their parent to make sure their dues are up to date !

Welcome to the forum.

 

I think the better question is is there a GOOD reason to create a crew in the first place?

Unless they want to hunt, shoot pistols, go on horse treks, rock scramble, or fly airplanes, you can do the sorts of high adventure things associated with Venturing with older Boy Scouts.

Venturing is a separate program, if you don't plan to do anything except use it as an enticing label to do more challenging Boy Scout things, then I don't see any reason to create a crew.

 

As to the original question, if "because you're supposed to and you can't become a Venturer without applying to be one" isn't good enough, I suspect nothing will be. Next you'll be asking for a good reason to do the Venturing training.

The GOOD reason to create a crew is that one of the easiest ways to keep boys over the age of 14 interested is to have girls over the age of 14 in the program