desertrat77

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 It's too simplistic to say that "they can't or won't care about unit level scouting."  We volunteers throw phrases like this around, but it can mean so many different things. 

It may indeed be simplistic. But it's true for many. 

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am very glad to hear your council does things like it is suppose to do. Sadly not every SE does that. I can tell you in my some councils I have been in, pros will ignore volunteers in charge of activities, make additional demands, and even overruling volunteers who are in charge of events to the point that they take over. It has gotten to the point the point that some longtime volunteers no longer have anything to do with the council because of the professionals.

Very true.  There are lots of great volunteers who have been disrespected by pros, and they vote with their feet.

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I think we have a different view of professionals in Scouting.  Professionals do not run Scouting - volunteers do.   We hire professionals because we recognize there are roles that benefit from having someone there full time to do them.

For example - if there are issues with the camporee - it should not be a professional's job to fix it.  That's the job of the district program chair or district chair.  Of course the professional should want to see it fixed - but that's why we have a Key 3.  The professional can sit down with the district chair and district commissioner and bring it up as a concern.  But, like in any organization, the person who's responsibility it is should be the one to address it.

I recognize that this seems idealistic.  To an extent it is.  But, our structure in the BSA is a mess.  Professionals who are doing too much, volunteers who are quitting because they are not empowered, unit volunteers who are frustrated because they expect professionals to fix things or care about things.  You want to empower volunteers - then you can't make them simply the job do-er for the professionals.  

 

Agreed, in the camporee example, the pro should talk to the Key 3.  But many pros either they don't care or there is a crew of unpleasant but long-tenured district vols that are difficult to deal with.  They are running things into the ground and it's easier just to avoid the subject altogether.  Or their responsibilities at the council level are such that even if they wanted to bolster the next camporee or heaven forbid even attend, they don't have the time.  If professional responsibilities have ballooned to the point where they can't or won't care about unit level scouting, it's time to reevaluate what is truly value added.

24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

Timely processing of paperwork (registrar) & food at the council camp (summer camp director) are professional responsibilities. 

I've found pros that don't care how bad their council service is in these areas.  They only deal with peers or those above them.  Vols and vol concerns are dismissed or held at arms length.   Not an ideal way of motivating your leaders in the field. 

35 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Your list is somewhat making my point: "Camporees, timely processing of paperwork at the council office, training schedules, the quality of food at the council camp."

Camporees & training schedules are volunteer responsibilities.  Timely processing of paperwork (registrar) & food at the council camp (summer camp director) are professional responsibilities.  Getting unit volunteers talking to district/council volunteers would be a good thing.  It would help unit volunteers to understand the path to having an impact on things like camporees and training.  I think the CSE could guide the organization to sort this out.

 

Actually, I think you missed my point...at any level--unit, district, or council--if these mundane things are not being done, or being done in a substandard manner, the pros should have a vested interest in getting them fixed.

At some point a pro will have to set the right vision, recruit the right vols, and offer the appropriate resources and support so these things get done.  Or it definitely will impact their fiefdom.

The pro/vol relationship dynamic and duty breakout should not be planets apart. 

25 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I'll admit - I don't see quite the same thing.  In our council, our professional staff is quite busy.  But, for the most part, the things they worry about are things that most volunteers don't care that much about (fundraising, membership, etc...).

The bigger issue I see is that ownership at the council level really isn't clear.  We don't do a really good job of letting folks know who is responsible for specific things.  So, we have lots of volunteers with ideas that get given to the professionals.  Yet, many of those ideas have little to do with professionals and are really volunteer functions.  Our professionals don't do a great job of making that clear.  

For example - a volunteer will take to the DE about some change that needs to happen with training - that we should hold a specific class at a specific time, etc.  But, professionals really have little to do with training.  It should be much clearer who a recommendation goes to - but it's not because most of us don't know or understand the structure of how things work in a council.

I'd think this is the kind of thing the CSE could instruct his program & HR teams to deal with.  More clearly define professional & volunteer responsibilities.  

Agreed, the pros have their duties.   However, in my travels and scouting experiences, I've seen many pros that are so completely focused on their insular world of professional scouting that they've forgotten or never knew what scouting is really all about. 

I've dealt with several pros who have had nothing but open contempt for anything that happens in the field, and especially toward unit level scouters that called attention to council shortcomings (poor service to units, low quality summer camp, etc).

Yes, the pros are focused on money and manpower but somehow many of them don't realize they can't do anything without the "great unwashed"--unit level scouters and the overworked DEs.  Camporees, timely processing of paperwork at the council office, training schedules, the quality of food at the council camp...while these things seem mundane to pros, they directly impact the things they are chasing most--numbers.

In the various councils I've belonged to, I've generally found the professional staff (above DE level) to be quite resistant to input from the field.  They are either in problem admiration mode or dismissive.  I fully understand that sometimes the answer is no, but open dialogue is not their strong suit.  One way communication.  This culture extends up to National as well. 

As @Eagle1993 mentioned earlier, this is a definite need for more transparency.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I’m a bit surprised our new CEO hasn’t sent out any message to the scouts and volunteers yet. Does anyone know if he sent anything to councils?  
 

I’ve been through transitions of leadership many times before and in all cases the new leader would have sent something out by now.  Not a major issue, just a bit odd.

Excellent point.  I haven't seen anything.  I agree, a message is traditional. 

My hunch, based on Mr. Mosby's prior experience, he probably has a message ready but the BSA "newsroom" is taking their time publishing it.  Looking through their archives, the newsroom has published five (5) articles since 20 Jun 2019.  Their last blog post was from July 2018. 

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/

Given the tidal waves of negative publicity the BSA has faced over the last 2 years, one would think the official news center of Irving would be a bit more proactive. 

19 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

When Venturing came out in August 1998, it was never about advancement, it had recognitions.  Do the professionals at Nationalhave any experience in Venturing?

I'm not sure but I rather doubt it.  Same mindset in the several councils I've belonged to.  They'll champion Cub Scouting all day long.  And STEM, Eagle Scout, FOS and popcorn.  Everything else?  Scant attention.

17 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

What problems do you think they need to solve that they are not?  Why do you think that they are inefficient?  Why do they need a shake up?

I believe @Eagle1993 hit the nail on the head.

8 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Again - my suggestion is that we focus on the problems that we they need to solve.

To help, here are the positions on that list:

• Chief Scout Executive
• Chief Financial Officer
• Chief Technology Officer
• General Counsel
• Deputy Chief Scout Executive
• Asst. Chief Scout Executive of Development
• Asst. Chief Scout Executive of Outdoor Adventures
• Director of Human Resources
• Director of Information Technology
• Director of Marketing
• Director of Outdoor Adventures
• Director of Supply
• Director of Support Services
• Director of the National Jamboree
• Director of the Summit
• Director of Philanthropy
• Director of Government and Community Relations
• 2 Regional Directors (not sure where the other two are)

Many of these I can see would have little to no impact on unit serving people.  (i.e., General Counsel, Human Resources, Development, and Philanthropy).  But for the others, what do you think that their departments need to be doing that is not being done?

Most of these are essential services at an executive level.  My contention is these functions are staffed with too many high paid managers and not enough worker bees.   Also, some of these departments are quite inefficient and need a shake up in what they do and how they do it. 

My concern is the number of pros receiving said salaries, the upshot being many of them are performing duties that contribute very little benefit to units in the field.  Executive level busy work.

I can't recall witnessing a situation where a scout was solely focused on earning MBs.  Usually, if they are determined to collect a ton of badges, Eagle is also on their "to earn" list.

From the Boy Scout Handbook, seventh edition, seventh printing, January 1971, page 357:

"Your advancement through Second and First Class ranks was a natural outgrowth of your patrol and troop experiences.  In merit badge advancement you are on your own [italics added].

"Why do we have merit badges in Scouting?  For two main reasons:  to encourage you to increase your skill in things you like to do and to give you a chance to try out new activities that may result in new interests....

"Many men who were once Scouts feel that their entire lives were influenced by their merit badge work.  Dr. Paul Siple, who was a Scout went with Admiral Richard E. Byrd on his expedition to the South Pole, first became interested in science through his merit badges...Hundreds of doctors, engineers, forest rangers, and naturalists had their ambitions kindled while earning merit badges as Scouts.  You, too, may start on your lifework by working on a merit badge."

And in the spirit of the holidays, I'll even give the anemic ISP a little recognition.  Scout Handbook, eighth edition, first printing, 1972, pages 72 - 73, re merit badges:

- Pick a Subject: "...Find out from your Scoutmaster who the counselor is for that badge...."

- Call the Counselor:  "Get a signed merit badge application from your Scoutmaster.  Phone the merit badge counselor and tell him you want to earn the badge.  He may ask you to come and see him so he can tell you what he expects...."

- Show your Stuff:  "When you are ready, call the counselor again to make an appointment...Most counselors like to meet with Scouts more than once...."

- Get the Badge:  "When the counselor is satisfied, he will sign your application...."

@skeptic, you mentioned the PTC.  While I'm against the big family camping push, the PTC is one place where it works.  Mom/Dad take courses and the kiddos are engaged in age-appropriate outdoor activities with qualified staff all day.  At night, everyone has dinner and then it's family time.

But outside the PTC?  A big "no" from me.  The BSA is already suffering from watered-down programming, adult-led everything, and restrictions on many outdoor activities that used to be the norm as well as huge recruiting draws.

I'm sure there is calculated risk management afoot on National's part.  Less legal risk for the BSA if mom/dad/guardian are/is present somewhere in the vicinity and Johnny/Suzy Scout gets hurt. 

Plus, for decades, the BSA has downplayed outdoor adventure and the patrol method.  This is the unfortunate result of consistently recruiting pros and vols that have zero interest in such things.  The ISP promoters of '72 are finally realizing their "dream."

It's all part of National's big push to turn the BSA into One Big Tiger Cub Den.  

14 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

But they are marketing Family Adventure Camps. ..How will you Philmont?

https://scoutingmagazine.org/2019/12/philmonts-family-adventure-camp-lets-everybody-in-on-the-fun/

P.S. Pawning Philmont does not appear on article  "A Philmont Timeline". 

True, the family camps are high quality with great staff.  However, sign ups were extremely low this last summer (sorry I don't have exact numbers).   Even with a significant increase in family sign ups, the fees would barely cover costs.

Edited to add:  I'm shocked--shocked--they didn't mention hocking Philmont!  🤕

The BSA needs new professional leadership.  The professional staff, above the DE level, has become insular and tone deaf, completely disengaged from the nuts and bolts of unit level scouting.

And gold loop business/management/accounting/communication/human relation/budgeting skills?  Atrocious. 

"Sell more popcorn" they tell the units.

National didn't sell one tin of popcorn before they pawned Philmont.

5 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Shhhhhhh.

 

You cannot get in trouble for doing what they don't know you're doing,

 

I  asked Eagles to help by letters and got a letter of reprimand from Region.  One of the Eagles, who said "yes," wrote Council saying he appreciated being asked, and a  Council middle-mgt. type forwarded it to Region for "action."  "The adults come with the  boys."

 

I asked "for the most precious thing," these men had, their time. Maybe the "professionals" didn't read and thought I was asking for money.  They get ALL bent about that. 

The BSA is blazing a bright future indeed!   These pros are Irving TX bound, no doubt in my mind.

35 minutes ago, MattR said:

I think Venturing is the canary in the coal mine because it really relies on youth leadership and there is much less incentive for adults to fix things. What I saw of venturing was really poor leadership and teamwork skills resulting in a loss of interest. The few crews I've seen were run like GSUSA troops in that it was a few adults that held it together until they aged out and the crew collapsed. I'm sure some were/are great, but not what I saw. I'm not at all surprised by those numbers.

I think it's entirely because the youth have less opportunity to learn people skills outside of scouting. They have less opportunity to solve their own problems and are under more stress to perform. They just have further to go when they get to scouts/venturing and we, honestly, don't know how to teach it or make it appealing to the youth.

Fix venturing and the fix for scouts will be obvious.

I agree Matt, well said.

The folks that designed the Venturing program put a lot thought into it.  I'm still impressed by how great Venturing could be.   Unfortunately, because of the factors you've mentioned, we rarely see Venturing live up to its potential.

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Anyone else note the drop in Venturing?  59.7% drop in Venturing and Sea Scouts since 2016. 74.9% drop since 2012.

 

Excellent catch, I missed it.

I am deeply committed to the Venturing program, but it's not getting much traction.

12 hours ago, DuctTape said:

 If a boy can learn to get his eggs to cook without sticking to an aluminum fry pan, he can handle any material.

Very true.  Of my memories as a patrol member, about half of them involve KP duty, endlessly chipping/scrubbing aluminum fry pans that were encased with impenetrable baked-on food substance.   

Lodge is the real deal.  Seasoned and ready to go.

There are several FB cast iron pages, with dozens of posts each day.  Recipes, reseasoning, identification of vintage items, etc.

I was a UC in several different councils.  When I introduced myself to units, the two main reactions were disbelief and suspicion. 

"I've been a SM for X years and you are the first UC I've met."

The well functioning units tolerated me.  Some struggling units were quite welcoming, happy to have another adult to go on campouts, talk about things, etc.  Other struggling units were quite content to flounder and resented any input.  Such is life.

As far as actual impact as a UC, I still have my doubts.  Moderate to minimal, even on a good day.   

The commissioner concept is great on paper.  Very rarely does it work as advertised.