desertrat77

@FirstClassVigil, welcome to scouter.com!

@Dis-fan12, welcome to Scouter.com!

@jeremyschultz, welcome to scouter.com!

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

In a nationwide program how do you define that beyond it's most general application?  How do you build a program around that?

Not trying to steal @qwazse's thunder (as I'm looking forward to his thoughts on this), but I'd like to lend my two cents....

" Youth fulfill the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with their mates."

@qwazse's quote above is the program. 

Venturing is designed for independent, spirited scouts.  Their adventures are youth-led to the extent that the rules allow.   Advisors must be adventure minded, allow the youth to led and yet keep the program within bounds without dampening motivation.

Simple and complex at the same time.   When it works, it is scouting at its very best.

Unfortunately, the BSA has been overcome by red tape and data chasing over the last couple decades.  The fact that Crew 123 went on a three-day backtracking trip--scout planned and executed--does not satisfy anyone but the crew (and that's okay by me!).

BSA:  "how many badges did they earn?  Did anyone advance to the next rank?  FOS?  Popcorn?  Council camp attendance?  All zeroes?  well...I guess Crew 123 is not doing well."

Actually, quite the opposite.

12 hours ago, ParkMan said:

By execs I presume you mean professionals...  I groan thinking about how much we care what they think.  I love my professional colleagues and value them immensely, but they are here to support the volunteer efforts.  That we defer to them is fundamentally wrong.  We volunteers are dropping the ball.

As it relates to Venturing, I think many pros are dropping the ball.  Quite often they are not creating the environment, or providing the resources needed, for the program to get a start in the community, much less thrive.

I'm not so much concerned about what the pros think as the fact that their priorities are usually quite different from the units they are supposed to serve.

- Advisors:  some like the image of being a Venture advisor, but are not suited for enabling a successful program.  Instead they strive to lead the crew in the manner of a troop, and sometimes even a pack.  The tone and activities = sedentary and adult-run.  Kids stay away in droves.

- BSA execs are often more enthusiastic about highly-scripted, predictable stuff like cub scouting, merit badge fairs, scout night at the ball game, etc.  This reflects in the scant attention given to Venturing awards, recognition, and resources allotted to the program.

- "Birds of a feather"--there are some great scouts in Venturing.  But there are just as many that are unmotivated and are fine with sitting around, doing nothing, and perhaps attending adult-run activities.  They can be cliquish as well.  I've seen young people that are initially interested in Venturing leave right away, because they know they aren't welcome by their peers and there isn't much going on anyway.

I believe Venturing is the BSA's best kept secret.  The potential of the program is amazing.  It could be "the" program that transforms the BSA.   Could be.

As others have mentioned, the cards are solid back up documentation.  Handbooks get lost and fall apart.  BSA administrative processes and IT = shoddy at best.

Plus they are great mementos.  I still have all of mine.

6 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Hello All!

First post for me...☺️

Wondering if you could help me understand something???...I see Arrow WV named in the Chap 11 filing.  When I went to Charity Navigator and pulled up their IRS 990 from 2017 (for example), it names Surbaugh as VP and Director, with reportable compensation of $624,714 (page 7 of 45).  When I check BSA National's for same year, it lists Surbaugh with exactly the same compensation (on page 26 of 111).   Any corporate finance gurus out there explain that?  Looks strange to me...

 

 

 

While I make no claim as a finance guru, I understand that Arrow WV is an entity (if that's the right word) that directly ties to the Summit.   So funds, such as a good chunk of the mortgage that National took out on Philmont (without advice/consent of the Philmont Oversight Committee) are steered to the Summit via Arrow WV.  I may have the legal/accounting terminology a bit off, but that's the crux of it.

@CChairmanOfTroop, welcome to scouter.com!

5 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Maybe I walk around with my eyes half shut, but I very rarely see scouters wearing the service stars.

I don't wear them myself because....
a) I'm too apathetic to jog over to the Scout Shop and buy 'em, and
b) There's no real requirements that might make them significant or meaningful.

I'm tracking re wearing.  I haven't worn service stars since the Carter Administration. 

As far as significance, I believe service stars have their place.  One example is @The Latin Scot's situation.  Though I respect the differing opinions, I think he should wear the star, red background.   Another would be the adult who was a scout for 3 or 4 years.  Made it to First Class.  Earned a few merit badges.  He was active in his troop, went to summer camp, 50 milers, was a patrol leader, etc.  Though he didn't make Eagle (and that's okay) he was a good scout, and his experiences made a lasting, positive impression.  So that little service star with the green background, pinned above his pocket, may not mean much to anyone else.  But it will be special to him.

10 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I love that statement.  I've heard too other adult leaders say scouts are not ready to lead or not old-enough to lead.  ... The above statement reflects my view that scouts learn by doing.  If our scouts are young, they can still lead.  Inexperienced, they can still leader.  We as adult leaders continually adjust and quietly coach and slightly help as necessary with the continuous eye toward how can we step back.  ... I swear I bite my tongue every time I hear another leader say the scouts are too young, too inexperienced, too <insert your favorite excuse> .  When I hear it, I usually think that's not an adult I want my scouts around as it's the adult's excuse to over-engineer the scouting program or inject themselves into the program.   

Thanks Fred, I definitely agree.  This method is very important to me.  It's how I learned the ropes as PL of the Stampeding Antelopes many moons ago.  Zero classroom training.   I was given plenty of room to succeed or fail.  And wow, some of my failures I remember to this day.

But then we Antelopes hit our stride.  Winning the "best campsite" award and placing second for the stew cook off at a monthly troop camp out (there were five patrols in this troop).  Honor ribbons at camporees.  Good times.

The key elements:

- Formal leadership training for youth was limited to one scout per year in my troop.  Usually the SPL.  He would go to Brownsea II and return with high praise.  Everyone else?  OJT.

- The SPL gave constant feedback and coaching.  And it wasn't always pleasant.  He was the on-scene leader.  He ran troop meetings and outings.  Not an adult.

- Sometimes a JASM strolled by, observing, making a few wry comments, then ambling on.  These guys were Eagles and graduated SPLs.  Rock stars, in our eyes.  We listened and jumped.   We didn't want to look foolish in front of them.

- Adults?  Far away.  In their campsite, or in the SM's office during meetings, rarely heard from unless something really good happened.  Or bad.  "ANTELOPE PATROL LEADER, FRONT AND CENTER!"  I knew I was in for it then. 

Unfortunately, today I rarely see a troop dynamic that even remotely resembles what I just described.  Adults run everything.  Buying groceries.  Directing events.  Teaching skills.  Telling the PLs what to do.  The SPL and PLs are usually just names on paper. One big cub den.

This impacts the youth's overall scouting experience.  The last five or so Eagle boards I've sat on, I've asked "I see you were a patrol leader/senior patrol leader...what are some of your most memorable moments from those duties?"  Sadly, the candidates don't have much to say.  After a few non-verbals signalling uncertainty, they'll collect themselves and do their best to provide a good answer.  But it's obvious they didn't really get to experience fully what it was to be a PL or SPL.  The adults did everything.  A scout who was tried by fire can talk about their experiences, good and bad, with a smile on their face.

So I'm rambling at this point.  But I feel very strongly about it.  The scouts must be allowed to lead.  At meetings and in the field.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

The problem in all of this is two fold:

1) Our standard materials and adult training lead to lecture/school approach.  A volunteer needs to use some imagination to avoid this.

2) Some units are doing this well today.  They know how to lead with adventure and make it fun.

My takeaway is that this isn't a general condemnation of Scouting.  Again - some leaders do this very well.  But, for your rank-n-file leader it's too easy to fall into this trip. 

I'm not sure how to correct this.

 

I think we correct this by bringing back the type of scouting depicted in the upper panel of the drawing.  The scouts are learning to lead by actually leading, being outdoors, and engaging in scout skills that encourage adventure.

Patrol leaders teach scout skills and lead their scouts.  The SPL is the roving on-scene leader watching, correcting, encouraging PLs.  The SM is on the edge of the field, with a cup of coffee, a comfortable chair and an eagle eye on how the SPL is doing.

Today we have the opposite model.  Indoor minded adults.  Adults stealing the duties of the PLs and SPLs.  Lectures instead of hikes.  No patrol identity or autonomy.  Boring. 

Is the type of scouting in the top panel of the drawing perfect?  No, lots of chaos.  And some risk.  But ultimately it's the most effective type of scouting in the world.  And it's a good leadership lab too.

4 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

You could take that bottom cartoon and change the setting from indoors to outdoors, and you'd have a modern Scout campout or summer camp.

So true!

2 minutes ago, MattR said:

@desertrat77, I did a google search on that image and found that the signature is John Sweet. He also wrote a "scout pioneering" book in 1974, a "patrol meeting blue prints" book in 1961 and a "more patrol activities book" in 1951. There was one copy of the blue prints book so I bought it. Just the idea of that book is intriguing. Anyway, I think John is/was a UK scouter.

https://www.amazon.com/John-Sweet/e/B001KIGQI6/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Thank you Matt, great info! 

Powerful article, thanks @RememberSchiff!

Two parts of the article:

"'The local councils are not independent,” said Los Angeles attorney Paul Mones, whose suit against the Boy Scouts of America a decade ago resulted in the release of the “Perversion Files” — details of alleged sexual abuse secretly kept by the Boy Scouts for decades — as well as a $19.9 million verdict for a former Scout who was abused by his Scout leader in the 1980s.

'Even though the local councils have their own corporations, they’re inextricably linked to the national,” Mones said. “The Boy Scouts of America has to approve the troop leaders. The Boy Scouts of America carries the retirement plans. Every year, the local councils have to apply for an annual charter, which is approved by the Boy Scouts of America.

'There’s a real overlap, a significant overlap,” Mones said. “To the extent they allege that they’re separate entities, that remains to be seen."”

and.....

"The Boy Scouts of America’s bankruptcy petition lists assets of at least $1 billion, and liabilities of up to that amount.

"The Scout executives who received large compensation packages are among the creditors standing in line for money.

"'This has been a boondoggle for decades, where insiders pay themselves million-dollar salaries with fabulous pension plans,” said Tim Kosnoff, an attorney also representing abuse victims. “It’s sickening to see. They’re paid more than any other not-for-profit in the country. This is an abusive organization in more ways than one."”

------------------------------

My thoughts: 

- I watched my council's video response to the chapter 11 announcement.  It assured us that things are going to be just ducky, National itself and National's problems are far, far away, the council is independent, solvent, and will always be, and the council would continue to provide the world class service that we unit and district types have grown to know and expect. 

Struck me as pie in the sky then, and even more so now.

- National execs are (were) living high on the hog while victims were seeking recourse, and while the organization itself foundered. 

Hubris.

Well, for the commissioned BSA professionals of Irving TX, the gravy train is over. 

New scout patrols:  Webelos III at best.  Usually a demotivator for new scouts.  Some troops avoid these issues by providing outstanding leadership to the new scout patrols; most troops do not.

Operation First Class:  when this was first announced in '89, I was an ASM.  My SM and I wrote a letter to National expressing our concerns and disapproval.  We made a conscious effort to be polite.   We received back a rather dismissive reply from an exec.  The exec's opening sentence, if I recall correctly, ran thus:  "I find it interesting when people complain about things they aren't really informed about."  Dude, we were briefed at district round table!  So he told us to stop complaining, that everything would work out because he said so. 

The key selling point was "stats show that if a scout makes it to first class, he'll stay in scouting longer."  National never considered the quality of programming at the unit level that motivated these scouts to stay.  Instead, they just compressed the time line to make first class quicker.  Which is not the same thing.

It's been my impression that council mergers are major muscle movements.  At this point, can mergers take place that are worth the time, money, and energy expended?  Especially when liquidation is nigh.

Unfortunately, our council camps, nationwide, will be the first items on the auction block.

Many of these camps have been neglected for years.  Execs consider them cash cows, skimming the profit (little if any) and spending it elsewhere.  The BSA has de-emphasized the outdoors for years.  Many council decision makers will offer up the camp/camps and won't blink an eye. 

As mentioned earlier, legacy camps with solid alumni support like Bartle and Ten Mile will survive.  Most of the others won't.

The only qualification I've seen for service stars is the word "involved." 

19 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Desertrat77:  I think that we should base mergers and combinations on what makes best sense for the Scouts in that geographic territory.  Poor performance metrics of a council (as opposed to individual professional performance reviews) are objective and can't be fudged.  They are really good measures of what is going on.  I'd put the needs of the Scouts in the geography above the pool of professionals.  When a charter is withdrawn from a council, all is on the table.  No volunteer or professional has a claim to any particular position.  A larger council needs only one SE and will always need a bunch of DEs.  

Incidentally, councils that have a charter withdrawn can be reconfigured and portions can be placed into multiple nearby councils.  No single council needs to take the entire geography of a former council.

I'm definitely tracking, Cburkhardt.  I'm approaching this from the standpoint "council X is a poor performer because of a weak exec team."  Could these poor performing councils be turned around with a team of aces at the helm? 

If we're downsizing organizational structure first and execs second, we're allowing weak performers to stay on board and probably under perform again in the new structure. 

While I agree that councils should be merged and downsized, I think there is an important step that must first take place.

Rather than focusing initially on the poor performance of ABC and XYZ Councils, a centralized board should first examine the records of all executives above the DE level.  Only the top performers should be retained, say 30%.  These top ranked execs can then be divided into regions and develop a game plan for merging councils.

As important as the merger exercise is, it would ultimately prove fruitless if bottom tier execs were allowed to continue in any position of authority.

@The Latin Scot, I'd recommend swinging by the scout shop, picking up that service star, and pinning it on your uniform. 

I understand your concerns but the truth is, oftentimes scouting is a pick up game.  And as much as I respect and enjoy the Norman Rockwell paintings, scouting is rarely that organized or cut/dried.  We still have great scouting experiences. 

3 minutes ago, MattR said:

Another idea: What would it look like if the DE's could do what they thought was right, what they hired in to do, rather than chase numbers? I've met really great people that were destroyed by the get-money-or-die directives.

Matt, you just described a DE who was my mentor when I was a camp staffer and OA vice lodge chief back in the '70s.  A great scouter, gentleman, humorist.  When he first become a DE, he was given the leeway to do what he thought was right, as you said.  Camporees, waterfront director at summer camp, OA, you name it, he was there and enjoying life.  He mixed well with the scouts and scouters and was respected by all.  Then the council got a new SE and things changed.  We didn't see the DE except at council meetings.  When I'd stop by the council office to type up and publish the lodge newsletter, he was always in his office surrounded by paperwork, looking a bit glum.  He resigned shortly thereafter and became a highly respected educator.  He continued in scouting at the unit level, with his sons.