desertrat77

Speaking as a long-time OA member ('76), I think the OA is slowly dying. Pockets are still alive, but not many. Seems the scouts just aren't interested in it. They could take it or leave it. I know organizations change. But I think the beginning of the end was when the OA changed from focusing on electing the best scouts/campers to emphasizing an "honor society." The OA flap was a badge of honor. The old hallmarks were: 1. Tough to get elected. 2. A difficult ordeal. 3. True appreciation for Native American culture and heritage. 4. Being proud to serve on camporee staffs, ceremony teams, cleaning the latrines at camp...service was key. 5. There were secrets. But you gotta be elected to learn them. Society and scouting have changed a bit. I don't think it's particularly tough to get elected anymore. The ordeal--varies. Native American aspect: some scouts are still enthusiastic, most don't care. Service? Not so much. I see alot of OA chapter/lodge fun events, and a huge leap in the OA patch design industry. Secrets? No! The horror! The OA isn't that big a deal any more. I think a few decades ago, the BSA purposefully decided to downplay the mystique and honor-camper aspect. ...mission accomplished.

As always, thanks for the insights, Eagle. This GSA threat of legal action to protect The Cookie Syndicate...could this dynamic also be the real reason why the BSA has not allowed girls to join?

Agreed. Along the same lines, you have the scouts that stall out at Life, then turn 18, lacking one of the homework MBs, or started Citizenship in the World years before and didn't finish.

Exactly. It makes me wonder why.

Very true! Reflecting back, I recall small boat sailing as fun but very challenging. The 3 citizenship MBs were challenging in the sense that they were no fun at all. Just long, tedious exercises in perseverance. And I liked history, government, etc., in school.

So BSA National backed down from energy bars because of a potential lawsuit by the GSA? That's weak. For both organizations. Proof that the GSA will go to any extreme to preserve their turf. And proof that BSA National didn't have the courage to press forward with energy bars anyway. Did they really think the GSA would have pursued such a suit? It would make the GSA look small if they did. It also finally explains to me, after many years, why the BSA hitched its wagon to a lousy, uninspiring product like popcorn.

Eagle, I wondered the same thing. After serving a year as a Brownie co-leader for daughter's unit (about ten years ago), I found out (at least where I was at) the organization as a whole isn't very big on camping or anything resembling the BSA outdoor model. Nor having the girls run and play games or compete. True, a GS leader could forge her own way and emphasize the outdoors more. But it will be a pretty lonely venture. The GSA just isn't that kind of organization.

Quite alright Sentinel, it makes up for a red that I deserved but didn't get somewhere back in time!

Upon reflection, I cannot disagree.....

I'm surprised it's taken this long to happen.

Vumbi, great points all. Unfortunately, I think some National oversight may be necessary. (I can't believe I typed that last sentence!). As you know, some councils are more efficient than others. Some have their records squared away, and others not. The national scrub ensures that all of the dates, requirements, and other stuff is in order. Then the elephant in the room. Some councils are more honest than others. Or to rephrase, some councils have been known to cook books on membership and other matters, and if they had sole oversight on the Eagle process, who knows what would happen. That said, I begrudgingly view the administrative review and official stamp of approval from National as necessary formalities. Ah, but the truly memorable moment, the one that counts? After the scout has met the EBOR, been dismissed, paced the hallway for awhile, and is escorted back into the board room. When the board chair says "congratulations" THAT is when the scout is an Eagle. He realizes he made it. Relief, happiness, pride...etc. I may be wrong, but the court of honor may pale by comparison. For some. After he knows he passed, the rest of it just waiting for National to do its thing, and the logistics of the court of honor (the latter often turning into a giant pain the neck, depending on the level of hoopla generated by parents/troop/both).

But in defense of the units, the rechartering process is the worst of two worlds--a blend of old fashioned paper-based red tape, and clunky software. Very easy for a unit vol to miss a step or get bogged down. There is no reason in 2015 to have "rechartering packets" full of papers that must be waded through, with a multitude of steps. The process should be 100 percent on line. A series of clicks, an electronic signature, and payment via credit card or electronic withdrawal from the unit checking account. It is also important to note that the vols are busy as well. They have professions, families, and other civic commitments. Wading through the BSA's rechartering process at the end of a long day is no picnic for them either.

I'd offer two different WBs: 1. The current method, for those that desire it. 2. A high adventure WB, along the lines of what @@JoeBob outlined in another thread about another topic. Wild and wooly. Making shelters, catching fish for dinner, trekking thru the brush with map and compass, etc.. Leadership content is 90 percent field application, 10 percent group discussion at the end of the day. No easels, no ppt, no movies, no games. No showers, no plumbing, no civilization. Very little gear. Pull up a seat on the ground, on a rock, on a log. Frank discussion and feedback. Led by staff who enjoy this sort of outing. Ticket? People speak about it with hushed, respectful tones. Might be time to scale it back to something less burdensome.

@@Stosh, that is a good point. I understand org chart/wiring diagram/chain of command. But when the leadership of a non-profit org collectively starts conveying a disdainful attitude towards their very people that are a) executing the mission and b) raising the money to pay pro salaries, it signals something is wrong. A disconnect.

Three different DEs in 10 months. One lasted a single week. Currently we have no DE. Scouting is still happening nonetheless. As Stosh said, it isn't such a bad situation to be in.

Question: Who do BSA pros work for? Answering a question with a question: who raises the money to pay their salaries?

Gumby, I agree, it is a great idea. But the truth is many pros are better off staying away, for the good of the pro and the unit. They won't fit in, or they'll try to boss everyone around. Or both.

I can't speak for the council in question, but having been in several different councils, I would never use the word "family" to describe the relationship between council and units. Some councils were good to the units, some so-so, some outright disdainful. But never family. Perhaps the hour is late and I'm tired, but when I read the pitch for donations to keep the "family" in business, I thought of a distant relative calling me at midnight asking for money. The kind of relative that has nothing to do with you. Until he needs money.

Eagle94, When I read your post, I thought I read "give them a series of beatings" instead of "give them a series of bearings." I guess that would be a good attention getter!

ProScouter, Thanks for your years of service...I've never walked a mile in your boots, but I know from the folks that have, it is a tough trail. I wish you the best as you transition. Looking forward to your future posts.

Krampus, thanks for the eye opener! I guess after all of those years in the field as a DE/SE, chasing numbers, pushing FOS/popcorn, working with unwashed volunteers (some of them cantankerous vols haven't even been to WB, BSA's life-changing mountain-top leadership extravaganza!), they've finally grabbed the brass ring. A nice cubical in Irving TX. Lots of meetings, but only with fellow pros. If they slum a bit and visit a council, they are treated like a rock star. Sit on committees. Draft edicts that are "for the BSA's own good" like six foot tall signal towers and the water gun ban. Nod and grin as volunteers have the gall to criticize the endless red tape and poorly managed BSA software. Watch the DEs and SEs out in the councils scramble. Yep. The good life.

Point taken. Please remove "camporee" from my original sentence and substitute "outdoors" or "at a campsite" or "visiting any wilderness area." Also, when I was moving around the country quite a bit, I got to see first hand how people have come to hate camporees. Some districts and councils have turned them into truly awful events. However, there are still places that put on camporees that are enjoyable/old school/good outdoor experiences.

So true! I've often asked myself why the BSA isn't marketing it's best product--outdoor adventure. I've finally come to the sad conclusion that the BSA is now filled with adults that simply do not like the outdoors. It didn't happen overnight. Not sure when it began. A little in the '70s. More in the '80s. Much more at the turn of the century. You see them everywhere, the anti-outdoor crowd. District. WB staff. Large populations at council. Definitely well stocked at Irving. They aren't obvious, but you can identify them quite easily. They push programming/events that take place in town. They thrive at meetings. Kinda glum and uncomfortable when visiting a camporee. More than likely won't spend a night in a tent. If they venture as far as the council summer camp, it's for something like WB that involves picnic tables and ppt presentations in the mess hall. To each their own. Scouting has always had folks that aren't outdoors people, and everyone found their niche. The problem today: the non-outdoor people out-number the outdoor people quite a bit, especially in key positions that determine strategy, vision, and resource allocation. In the past, the non-outdoor people just did their thing and kept quiet. Not so anymore. They impact the image and programming of scouting, and not for the better. To me, it boils down to "birds of a feather." The BSA hasn't projected a rugged outdoor image in many years. The public at large knows this. Many dynamic people who thrive in the outdoors take a look at the BSA and say "no thanks." Why? They don't see any like-minded people in the BSA, or very few. The BSA would be wise to ditch the passive/pie in the sky initiatives/management speak (as demonstrated in the article by Mike), and get outdoors. High adventure or camping at the local farmer's property. Doesn't matter. Let that centennial uniform get a few bacon grease stains. Have that campaign hat become a bit bent at the brim and otherwise stained with dust and sweat. Get back to scouting's roots. Scouting's successful future is going to be based on scouting's successful past. This current baloney dreamed up by Irving--teams of graduated DEs/SEs with MBAs that don't like outdoor adventure, giving smooth briefings in the conference room--ain't going to cut it. The numbers tell the story.

Eagle, excellent points all. In the late '70s, one of my mentors was a DE. He was a great scouter, and was my supervisor one year on camp staff. He loved scouting, and people liked him. Always out in the field and working with the district and troops. Then one day, I dropped by the council hq and saw him in his office. However, he wasn't very happy, and the walls were covered with charts/graphs (taped over a bunch of cool scouting art and memorabilia), and he was sitting at his desk with a calculator and stacks of papers. He didn't say much and I even as a slightly thick headed teen, I knew something was up. We had a new SE and things were different. The DE later resigned and went on to be very successful in another career.

I'll borrow a phrase from another thread to describe the "initiatives:" lame, lame, lame. Career exploring and STEM make great PR, but the are and always have been specialties that have appealed to small segments of the youth population. More cub scouting: steer resources and focus to the most predictable category of scouting. So the kids do the cub scout programming death march, for years, and then what? No mention of how to recruit and retain traditional boy scouts. Short sighted there. Family scouting? Good idea. But salesmanship involves selling something people want. Very interesting that the author picked the year 1972 as high water point. Gosh, something else happened in the BSA that year...that's right, the Improved Scouting Program. Where National scuttled every winning strategy in its arsenal for something that they perceived as hip, cool, modern, and PC (before there was such a phrase). Too bad no one outside of National thought so. Didn't work out so well. Newsflash to the strategy folks at National: kids want to hike, camp, climb mountains, swim, start fires, shoot guns, and paddle canoes, with a minimum of adult supervision. Kids in 1915 liked those activities, and kids in 2015 do as well. This isn't as tough as you think it is, HQ Irving. But you'll have to swallow your pride, set aside the fancy ppt slides and disband the committees that are dreaming up all of this pie in the sky, and dust off the BSA's successful formula: outdoor adventure. Everything else will fall into place.