dkurtenbach

Oh, my. When someone wants to conduct a business or other enterprise, they will often determine that a "corporation" is the best legal form for that business. In order to form a corporation, they must file the necessary paperwork and receive a certificate of incorporation from the state. At that point, the corporation is subject to state law concerning what activities it may lawfully engage in, and its duties, responsibilities, and obligations. A federal charter is similar. Like a state certificate of incorporation, it provides the fundamental legal authority for the organization

20 activity badges + Webelos badge requirements + Arrow of Light requirements + day camp/resident camp + pack activities + countless BSA awards = far more Webelos programming than can reasonably be accomplished in 18 months. Dan K.

desertrat77 wrote: "Hyperbole is the right word, though, to describe how some LNT faithful deliver their program. Disagree with a tenet, and one is lectured like a Tent Trencher, or a Bough Cutter." Yeah, I know a couple of those. LNT is a religion, and if you question anything about it, you're a heretic and should be burned at the stake -- but only in an established fire ring with sticks from the ground that can be broken by hand. Even an innocent question like, "If LNT is an 'ethic,' why is it written in the form of rules?" means that you need to be sent to an LNT re-education camp.

I would agree with the view that an apology need not be an admission that the person apologizing was wrong in some way, or even "sincere" in the sense that the apologizing party feels bad about what happened. Rather, an apology is an acknowledgement that something has been broken -- a relationship, the peace, an expectation of how things should be done -- and that the apologizing person has chosen (for whatever reason) to attempt to repair what was broken. In that sense, an apology is an act of bravery and a commitment for the future. In Barry's story, the entire troop bore the responsi

You always hear about people demanding an apology, particularly when some celebrity or politician makes a public gaffe. An offended person demanding an apology isn't about reconciliation, it is about winning the argument -- an apology in that context is not really an apology, but an admission of guilt or a surrender. Yes, we have to teach our young people that when they have done something wrong, an apology, together with making things right, is appropriate. But the point of an apology is a personal reaching out to the other party, not an element of punishment. Dan K.

Thanks for spinning off this topic. On the question of "change" versus "innovation," I think of innovation as a new thing or a new way of doing an old thing, with "new" meaning something like _we_ have not done it or anything like it before, or if we have, very few remember it. In that sense, I personally see most of the items on your list as "changes" -- just a repackaging or rearrangement of things we're already doing or have previously done. I would also put Venturing in that category. I think Leave No Trace is an "innovation" -- a break from Scouting's perspective in its first

Adults participate when it is fun for them. Every person has different things that they find fun. You can't make something fun for someone else unless they are already inclined to enjoy that activity. That's why I never require parents to take on some role, perform a service for the troop, or otherwise participate. Those who want to will volunteer, and we'll all be happier without annoyed, grumpy, or unenthusiastic adults around. At the same time, for the folks who are inclined to enjoy themselves doing Scouting, it is easier to draw them in and keep them in if you take care t

I am often asked why I am still active in Scouting when my sons are grown and gone. I don't have any profound or altruistic answer; I just say, "Scouting is my hobby." Yes, it is a great program for youth, but I (and many other Scouters, I'm sure) don't stay involved because of Scouting's educational and character-building aspects. I stay involved because it is fun. It is fun working with the boys. It is fun going camping and hiking. It is fun hanging out with a bunch of great Scouters. It is fun being on forums like this. And when it is no longer fun, no longer a hobby, I'll leave.

Clemlaw wrote: "But starting in about 5th grade, we don't have something for everyone. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. If a former Cub Scout is a good member of the baseball team, or football team, or marching band, or whatever, then I would say that we did a successful job with that kid. He probably never would have been a Boy Scout anyway. I wouldn't worry too much if he doesn't spend his entire youth under the umbrella of the BSA brand name." I agree, absolutely. But BSA still has the goal and mindset of retaining every boy, even if we don't have a suitable program

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." I suspect that most folks who look at this see the "June 15, 1916" date and immediately dismiss the Charter as irrelevant. But it is clear that the Charter is NOT talking about Scoutcraft as it existed in 1916, nor about the uniform as it was the

It's worth the emphasis.

Basementdweller wrote: "I am hearing a lot of excuses here. Den Chiefs, program, webelos, wolf and bear years, sports, competing activities. But ultimately doesn't it fall to the Den Leader." Of course. An enthusiastic den leader can overcome all of the issues we've discussed. Without an enthusiastic den leader, the program is mediocre at best, and boys leave. In the program as it exists today, the burden is all on the den leader. So all we have to do is figure out how to get more den leaders who are ethusiastic about the program and stay that way (that is, don't burn out) for longer

Clemlaw wrote: "Personally, I think we should worry less about it. We can do a good program for little kids (Lion-Tiger), followed by a good program for the middle grades (Wolf-Bear), followed by a good program for older elementary kids (Webelos), followed by a good program for middle school (Boy Scouts through First Class or so), followed by a good program for high school (Venturing, higher boy scout ranks, leadership in a troop, OA, etc.) I'm not sure where they exact cutoffs should be, but you get the idea--Tiger Cubs is very different from Order of the Arrow." Agreed. However, I thi

I see this as another sign that BSA has been getting the message: re-emphasize the outdoors, re-emphasize adventure. I've seen an increased promotion of Cub Scout camping in the last couple of years, and there is the building of the new high adventure base in West Virginia. Now, if this re-emphasis would filter down into the actual Boy Scout advancement requirements in addition to these "non-core" awards and programs . . . Dan K.

Shortridge asked: "Other than the helmet issue (previously mentioned), what are these out-of-synch rules?" Things like age limits for shooting (I understand NRA doesn't have them), BSA Lifeguard (rather than simply accepting Red Cross Lifeguard/Waterfront Lifeguard), and Safe Swim Defense rules still being applicable (with certain exceptions) at licensed public swimming pools.

I see the Charter as an ideal incubator for innovation. You see, there is no "only" in the Congressional Charter. As long as BSA carries out those purposes, there is no reason BSA can't do other things (like Cub Scouting and Venturing) as long as those other things don't conflict with the statutory purposes. The only real issue with the Charter is what the word "methods" means in the phrase "using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." That's a topic for another conversation, but personally I think it leaves plenty of room around the edges for innovation.

Kudu, I think that the Congressional Charter for BSA -- expressing the statutory purposes for BSA -- is old enough and ignored enough that most folks would consider it a new idea: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." United States Code Title 36, section 30902. Unfortunately, I'm

Barry, nice summary of guidelines for successful innovation. The really difficult one, I think, is number 3: "The innovation must fit within the BSA program so it doesnt corrupt other parts of the program." Many suggestions for new programs, or new ways of running the old programs, involve blowing up the problematic current feature or process and installing the new thing -- without giving much thought to how that will affect things upstream and downstream of the problem area. Dan K.

Musings: The premise of the "Where did they go?" is that we care that boys leave Scouting; not just on the personal level (did I do something wrong?) or unit level (what is wrong with out program?), but on the BSA "mission" level. We want a boy to join Scouting in first grade (or kindergarten, in Councils where they are running the Lion pilot program), and stay until he is twenty-one and ages out of Venturing. In that sense Scouting is like a religion -- our mission is to improve human beings, and we can only do that as long as they keep coming. Fundamentally, we agonize over kids who

Kudu, are you available to sit on the panel?

Great ideas! Would love to hear more.

Just a reminder that I am not defending these restrictions in any way. The "we don't want our image to be of an organization that allows boys to point toy guns at each other" is particularly offensive, it seems to me. I'm just suggesting that in the bigger picture, these particular restrictions on certain activities (including the hoops we have to jump through to do certain _allowed_ activities) are largely irrelevant. Even if we could do all of those things (or do them easily), we'd still simply be competing with all of the other organizations that do those things. Do we really think

I agree that many restrictions seem silly in light of what kids can do at commercial facilities, non-Scout camps, and at activities affiliated with other organizations -- particularly when there really is no substantial safety issue, or when BSA's rules differ from those of governing associations or recognized authorities for the particular activity. At the same time, I can't think of any such restricted activities that, if allowed, would make any real contribution to the Scouting program. And we'd just be offering the same activities as those other providers. If we want to stan

I don't see any major problem with the program content of the Cub Scouting program. The issues I see are really about how that content is delivered, and the structure of the program. Program delivery issues are things like the overly large (I think) proportion of tell/explain/discuss requirements in relation to hands-on activities, and things like what the program asks den leaders to do, and what BSA wants den leaders to know and when it wants them to know it. Structural issues are things like how many years the program covers, what years are covered, and critically (I think) the organizati

No, no, no. The point is to make it easier for more adult leaders to be enthusiastic, and to continue to be enthusiastic for a longer period of time -- not to use unenthusiastic leaders. And certainly not to give adult leaders the job of simply reading to the Scouts from a book. In simplest terms, we need to make Cub Scouting more fun for adult leaders. KISMIF applies to adult participants too. Dan K.