desertrat77

Great public relations initiative, and more power to the folks that would enjoy such a event. Personally, I'd say "no thanks" and let someone else take my spot. Trees are nice, but I like camping in the wide open places...prairie, tundra, desert. But not under spotlights, nor with all of the PR staff, security, and extra rules/nuances of camping in such a place. Plus, I've never been drawn to "celebrity." Thankfully there are people who are, and I'm glad they will jump thru all of the hoops necessary to make the event a success. My personal feelings aside, I don't think it would be a good PR coup for the BSA to ask for equal camping time at the WH. Camping of any kind in the GSA is a big deal. If the BSA wants to pursue the outdoor adventure theme, they'll need to do something more than a staged campsite in Wash DC.

Recycling is not a good fundraiser. Ranks at the bottom, along with car washes. Lots of hard work with little payoff. The only time I saw it work was when I was SPL, and the SM had connections with a couple of squadrons at an Air Force base. They allowed us to haul away their computer printouts (this was the late '70s), which was a huge amount of paper. We filled the SM's Mazda hatchback to the gills and took it all to a local recycler. Usually several trips a Saturday. I don't recall what we got paid, but even then it was only considered "fair" and certainly not "great."

Boyledscouting, I'd recommend looking for another troop. When I was your age, I was in a large troop with dynamics similar to your own. I stayed, longer than I should have, out of loyalty, but I was miserable. Thankfully our family moved and that ended that. Your desire to help the troop is admirable. But, as others have pointed out, you only have a few years left as a scout, and those years should be spent doing something more profitable that fighting the tide. The SMs won't listen, and the council refuses to help. A different troop will welcome you. The difference will be night and day. Best wishes and please let us know how things go.

Thoughts and prayers....

Sounds like a good plan, all the way around. Glad they dropped the "homework MBs" from the shuttle plan.

Well said! The beading ceremonies tend go on and on, often in front of captive audiences.

When I think back to my initial training as an ASM ('85), the main benefit was the role of patrols. However, as I recall, very little was actually said about patrols during the course of instruction (5 full consecutive Saturdays, followed by a weekend campout), but we were divided into patrols and encouraged to come up with names, cheers, etc. The patrol spirit took off on its own, and continued to build over the ensuing weekends. The rest of the course? Staffed by insufferable bores from district and council. Yammering on and on about district and council stuff, and their vaunted role in said stuff. Very little content about troop-level matters. No matter. Each patrol evolved with its own identity and the campout/graduation weekend was like a mini camporee. In fact, the patrol dynamics grew beyond the comfort level of some of the staff. What was supposed to be a merely functionary grouping developed beyond their control at times, especially the campout. The staff let us know their discontent about this, in subtle ways. Lots of laughter, good natured pranks and building bonds during breaks and after hours. Good times! The patrol method works.

Eagle, good point re GB Bill...I think I jammed the timeline too much. If memory serves, I was thinking of GBB being eased out of WB, in favor of the White Stag version. The ISP came several years later. I like the canoeing/rafting WB format! Leadership is best learned in the field. When I look back on my military career, I went to some good professional development courses. But the best insights came in the field. After a lot of difficult labor, over a long day (or night). Sitting down with your tired comrades, with a cup of coffee, or other beverage, and having an impromptu "hot wash" is the best leadership lab. Plus it built bonds, true bonds. The "afoot/afloat" WB would keep the non-outdoor folks back in town. Very different environment from the camp mess hall/death by powerpoint format that WB seems to adhere to today.

Eagle94-A1, I wonder why too. It seems that many people in key leadership positions in the BSA, from district to National, don't like the outdoors. Interesting that they would want to wear the uniform of an outdoor-focused organization. I guess the BSA has always had folks like this, doing useful work nonetheless, but in the past I think they kept their bias fairly well hidden. Not so any more. These leaders aren't just the biased against the outdoors, but also against outdoor-minded men and women as well. Many good scout leaders have decided "I don't have time for this nonsense" and left the BSA. When the BSA benched GB Bill, and started the "Improved Scouting Program" of the seventies, it opened the doors for people that like meetings, briefings, and indoor activities. Then they shelved the things that made scouting successful in the past. The anti-outdoor types are now firmly entrenched in the BSA, and seem to flock to sedentary programs like WB. I've never had the desire to attend WB, but now and again, a scouter here at scouter.com will mention they went thru a backpacking version of WB. I think if you must go thru WB, that is the way to go! Pack on your back, sleeping in the field, and no powerpoint!

Interesting that WB/21, allegedly so insightful, so revolutionary, so life-changing, so vital to BSA operations that even prior WBers were expected to sign up and go thru the course again, is now being replaced.

Always a bit of mystery in these scenarios. For an Eagle that misses the age-18-goal-line, for one reason or another, I'd err on the side of mercy. Not too much, just a bit, particularly if it was a paperwork snafu. The BSA is not known for its administrative brilliance. But Bad Wolf raises a good point re the case at hand...what was happening in the ensuing three years after the submission? For the grad student who ended up at the fast food joint, I concur with Bad Wolf on this as well. It does not speak highly of the former student, nor of the school. A grad student--not an 18 year old freshman wandering around with a map of the school, wondering where his classes are being held--but someone who has a BA/BS shows up to class one day, no prof, and what happens? The school doesn't communicate with the grad student, the grad student doesn't make an appointment with a counsellor or dept chair to ask 'what's next?'...he just drifts away? Sadly, it just reinforces an old stereotype about the cloistered nature of academia....

I'm reminded of some excellent advice I received years ago: "Don't argue with crazy people." Suggestions/corrections to the lady won't help. Considering the fact that her previous behavior hasn't been sterling, it's time to say "adios" to her. A one-way conversation, addressing her behavior and the effect it has had, and then a polite but firm "thanks for your service, best wishes in your future endeavors."

I haven't received a membership card in a couple of years. In previous councils, I would receive one about mid-way through the year. Interesting that technology has not made the process any quicker or better quality. (Perhaps "technology" isn't the right word to use in this situation, as National has shown no evidence of understanding how to leverage technology for the good of the BSA as a whole.) When I look back at the membership cards of my youth, there appeared to be a genuine effort at presentation--artwork, and proper use of centering and a readable font. Also, check out the membership cards from the early decades of scouting. Very classy. Something you'd be proud to carry in your wallet. The last several years? Late. Or not arriving at all. If the card finally gets to my hand, it is a cheesy piece of paper, un-centered, un-even printing. Zero pride of craftsmanship. Maybe this is something that should be rolled in to the next BSA Strategic Plan?

A troop in our district has conducted their own summer camp the last two years. The scouts and scouters really like the concept. They had plenty of activities, even if they had to commute a short ways for aquatic stuff. As Stosh said, they also had lots of free time to relax, visit, and shoot the breeze.

Time and funds permitting, I'd rather go back to Philmont.

Calico, if I'm a unit level scouter, I don't have time to babysit the district. Most districts, their problems are self-created and self-perpetuated. And a bonus: they are either blind to them or they are fine with the status quo. If the district doesn't respect unit level scouters--the very principle that many "pro-district" scouters miss--then it is not worth the unit scouters' time to do anything with, or for, the district. Recruit a UC? Tough enough to recruit a new ASM or a committee member. Even if a unit scouter adopts the idealism of your post, I submit it's still a waste of the scouter's time IF the district doesn't want any help or improvement. The unit scouters' job is tough enough as it is. The last thing they need is to jump into fix it mode to salvage a district.

We're in tornado country...almost all scouters have a smart phone with weather info cued up. I carry a basic but effective NOAA weather radio. It also pays to keep an eye on the skies, the old fashioned way, as well. During district events, I've noticed scouts and scouters show a lot of savvy about watching the sky.

I'll take the counterpoint--"you" are not the district in many places in the BSA. When "you" show up, either new to scouting or experienced but new to the area, "THEY" will let you know in a very clear manner that THEY are the district...and you are not. Your prior experience, willingness to serve, real-world professional life, charm, etc., doesn't matter one bit...if THEY don't want you, adios. Or they'll "allow you the privilege" of serving in a set capacity...and then make you so doggone miserable with their micromanagement and passive aggressive antagonism that you'll say "screw this" and not volunteer again. If your district is working, or even half working, please understand that that is not necessarily true all around the BSA. I'm a district staffer. We have a very small staff, and are often double/triple hatted. Whole committees unmanned, save the multi-hatted chair. But, every man and woman that is on the staff welcomes unit input and respects what our troops, packs and crews are doing. Our last I'M THE DISTRICT type retired last year and it's been blue skies and clear sailing since. Sure there are a lot of "improvement opportunities" to get the district up to BSA "expectations" but we have a visible energetic DE, District Chair and Commissioner both solid, humble, outdoor-oriented, pro-unit, hardworking scouters. I count my lucky stars. But that isn't true everywhere I've been. In those places, the district could fold and everyone would be better off.

Was a scout for 4 years in Alaska...moose steaks are superb.

There were a few odds and ends sprinkled throughout the speech that didn't pertain to the gay issue, but nothing much to speak of. I lol'd: "How about that STEM? STEM is great!" Chief Diversity Officer? Might be to help the underprivileged or to support the gay transition. Or both. Certainly a PR angle to that too. Makes me wonder about the water gun decision. Was that the shiny object to divert attention away from the key issue on the horizon, referred to in Mr. Gates' speech? Nah. If National played it that way, it would show a sense of strategy (poor strategy, but strategy nonetheless). More than likely, there was no coordination on the releases, they just pushed them out. Another banner week for the BSA.

A bureaucracy is always satisfied with the quality of its service. The customers? Their opinion doesn't count. No doubt National is quite pleased with the clarity of their communications. Everyone (read: fellow bureaucrats/party line types) who proofread them sent back glowing reviews. So there can't be anything wrong. Dissent? From scouters in the field? Shrug. No big deal. They must have read it wrong, or they don't "get it." Because all of our pals think that our products are "swell!"

Stosh, believe me, everything about that disaster of a patrol falls in the category of "not a good example"! Bad description/label on my part. Should have just let "holding pen" suffice. TG: has to be the right senior scout if the NSP benefits. Be it the TG of today, or a member of the Leadership Corps of old, they can either be a big help or just a bunch of senior scouts sitting around shooting the breeze.

As '70s era scout, I was in three different troops, five different patrols, during my time as a patrol member and/or patrol leader. Four were mixed aged patrols, one new scout patrol (of which I was a member). The mixed aged patrols ranged from okay to great. The new kid patrol was a dumping ground/holding pen for us young scouts, with a tried/true bully as PL (son of the SM, who never intervened). A year of toxic scouting, zero progress in skills or rank. It wasn't till I joined another troop that my experience on the scouting trail improved. Ideally, the boys should choose their own patrols. However, our national social structure is anything but stable. People move, and even if they stay in the same area, they rarely have the deep roots and connections of yesteryear. Families are highly compartmentalized, and folks don't seem to interact outside of their set boundaries. Patrol meetings? I'm all for them. But some scouts may live many miles apart, long tedious highway/traffic miles at that. If a troop can promote traditional patrols, by all means, full speed ahead. For the other troops, where membership turns over quickly, like a bus station, they just need to do the best they can.

Kids playing with water guns understand it is a game. Only an adult can convolute normal play into something sinister. Transferring the rules of the real-world rifle range to free play with a super soaker on a hot day is quite a reach. The product of the Nervous Nellie crowd, who are experts at hand wringing and fretting about trifles, and frowning upon anything that might be fun. But what do I know? I'm sure the BSA thought this through and based their decision on their understanding of what scouts consider fun, the scouts being the primary customer. After all, BSA recruitment numbers have been climbing steadily, year after year, to the point where there is a waiting list. Kids are knocking down the door to get in scouts, and once they get in, almost all of them are staying till they are 18. What? Oh. That's right, the reality is just the opposite. The BSA is in decline. And has been for years. There are two sad things. First, the decision at hand. Second, the folks at National that made the decision do not care one bit about how the public at large, or scouts, think about the decision (particularly how ridiculous it is). Kowtowing to lawyers and the PC crowd is more important. The disconnect between National and reality is quite profound on this one. You can see it in other decisions, like the shorty signal towers that Eagle94 mentioned (six feet is plenty high to signal someone 50 yards away!), or the design of uniforms. But this one takes the cake.

Bad Wolf, let me search my memory...hmm...popcorn sales administration and signing unit rechartering packages?