Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Adult leader registration in specific positions (adult leaders should register as adult leaders, not Scoutmasters, Den Leaders, Committee Members, etc.)

I registered as an ASM for the first time in 1971.  Just a simple adult registration, did not specify position (other than the fact that 18 I could not be a SM)

In today's world, I had to fill out one adult app (with YPT certificate attached) as a Unit Commissioner, another as a Den Leader, another as a MB counselor, again as an ASM, and once more as ADC for roundtable.  I would have had to do another to change designation in the pack from DL to committee member, but I made that change when doing online recharter, which is the only time the change can be made without another paper form.  Every one of those also required YPT certificates to be attached, even though council personnel can see online when I did YPT and when it expires.  Definitely needs to be simplified.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Well, most of them aren't very tall to begin with.  😁

Hey now!  Some of our cubbies are taller than me!😅

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

COs are already dropping units.  I know of a unit (prior to bankruptcy) that struggled to find a new CO when their PTO dropped them.  They eventually found a fire station to be a CO.  Several others ended up creating "Friends of …" COs.  At our district meetings I have seen 1 or 2 CORs attend ever. Very few seem to meet today's requirements. If more work/pressure/liability  was put on COs, I expect the whole CO/BSA system to collapse. 

Get actual engagement to CO's and ask them what they think their role should be.  So many just see it as they have a meeting space to provide, and if the unit(s) give back a little service- whether that is some landscape cleanup once a year, or flag placement for Memorial Day, or being active participants at Veteran's Day events.  That is all that the majority want.  They don't want to be involved in the day-to-day running of the unit, or the "politics" of the unit.

I know of 4 units that have a "friends of", and two of them are completely fictitious orgs, another is actually incorporated, and another is incorporated but not the actual named CO.  Both of the later, for what it is it worth, are not exactly what the BSA wants, so why any of them are allowed to exist... Goes to my biggest beef, is council only give two cares about #'s, not actually making sure the program runs as it is supposed to.  That would be my sacred cow that needs to gets sacrificed.

Edited by HashTagScouts
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to OA, yes, the membership change has been compounding the woes of the order overall.  It indeed, by and large in every Lodge, became the council camp workforce- doing work at Ordeal is what is embedded to the "trials" on sealing membership (not sure everyone here is a member, so I'll leave it there).  However, as it became providing Beaver Days, and as councils here in the Northeast began to merge, and there were now often more than one camp in a council, it became even more used as a workforce, we moved beyond service as anything other than camp workers.  To me, we got there because councils were becoming cash strapped, and they saw "free labor" as the answer.  Fellowships for many Lodges became video-gaming fests or anything else that didn't take $ to operate.  Hardly made them anything special.  I've suggested to our Section leadership to develop some conversation about Lodges rethinking Fellowship weekends to become high-adventure weekends- go on a whitewater trip, a canoe trip, a backpacking weekend, etc.  Section adults felt that was trying to turn Lodges against the camps, so didn't want to support it.  OK, so if we are going to be at camps, then have camp actually running- waterfront, shooting sports, climbing, etc.  Without that stuff, you aren't getting those outdoor minded kids coming.  

OA does have to be a sacred cow that needs to be retooled back to its roots, but I don't think it needs to just be canned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Get actual engagement to CO's and ask them what they think their role should be.  So many just see it as they have a meeting space to provide, and if the unit(s) give back a little service- whether that is some landscape cleanup once a year, or flag placement for Memorial Day, or being active participants at Veteran's Day events.  That is all that the majority want.  They don't want to be involved in the day-to-day running of the unit, or the "politics" of the unit.

As a unit leader, why should I be driving the active engagement from the CO?  Shouldn't that by the CO & COR's role?  Our unit leaders have enough to do with managing a unit let alone trying to train the CO on how to be a CO.

Our CO has no building.  They provide $0 to us.  They don't help find leaders.  We have been attempting to get a solid COR with no success.  The only decent COR we had was also our DE which caused issues. No one from their club wants to be a COR.  I agree they don't want to be involved in day-to-day running of the unit … but the fact is they are barely aware that we exist other when we help at their fundraiser.   Basically, we ended up with them because our PTO dropped us in the 1990s.  We became a friend of unit there but that was risky so a leader at our current CO said they would be willing to sign our charter. 

If the CO model was working well, organizations would be contacting the BSA to setup and charter units.  Every CO would have their COR really own the unit.  Instead, most unit leaders are hunting for COs they can convince to take on their charter.  Unit leaders are tracking down their barely existent COR and IH to get signatures on a charter app.  I have never met my IH as my DE still helps me get his approval.  At that point, why even bother with the CO model?  I know there are good ones out there, but they seem few and far between. 

Getting back on topic of sacred cows ... I would kill the CO … or at least allow a hybrid model.  Essentially allow the BSA council to be the CO of units.  For those units with COs, they can follow the current model.  I understand that could impact how COR voting is counted, but at this point I think we have bigger issues to deal with.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

As a unit leader, why should I be driving the active engagement from the CO?  Shouldn't that by the CO & COR's role?  Our unit leaders have enough to do with managing a unit let alone trying to train the CO on how to be a CO.

Our CO has no building.  They provide $0 to us.  They don't help find leaders.  We have been attempting to get a solid COR with no success.  The only decent COR we had was also our DE which caused issues. No one from their club wants to be a COR.  I agree they don't want to be involved in day-to-day running of the unit … but the fact is they are barely aware that we exist other when we help at their fundraiser.   Basically, we ended up with them because our PTO dropped us in the 1990s.  We became a friend of unit there but that was risky so a leader at our current CO said they would be willing to sign our charter. 

If the CO model was working well, organizations would be contacting the BSA to setup and charter units.  Every CO would have their COR really own the unit.  Instead, most unit leaders are hunting for COs they can convince to take on their charter.  Unit leaders are tracking down their barely existent COR and IH to get signatures on a charter app.  I have never met my IH as my DE still helps me get his approval.  At that point, why even bother with the CO model?  I know there are good ones out there, but they seem few and far between. 

Getting back on topic of sacred cows ... I would kill the CO … or at least allow a hybrid model.  Essentially allow the BSA council to be the CO of units.  For those units with COs, they can follow the current model.  I understand that could impact how COR voting is counted, but at this point I think we have bigger issues to deal with.

I'm agreeing with you.  My opening statement on hearing what they want is for the Council to do, not us as unit adults.  Ours has flat out told us to forge their signature, it is up to us to run the thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

I registered as an ASM for the first time in 1971.  Just a simple adult registration, did not specify position (other than the fact that 18 I could not be a SM)

In today's world, I had to fill out one adult app (with YPT certificate attached) as a Unit Commissioner, another as a Den Leader, another as a MB counselor, again as an ASM, and once more as ADC for roundtable.  I would have had to do another to change designation in the pack from DL to committee member, but I made that change when doing online recharter, which is the only time the change can be made without another paper form.  Every one of those also required YPT certificates to be attached, even though council personnel can see online when I did YPT and when it expires.  Definitely needs to be simplified.

AMEN! We have to also do the BSA background check form, and then a MA specific CORI form, and for some roles Council requires us to do YPT every year for some ungodly reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, these are certenly unique ideas.  Wow, let the CO be responsible or take the CO out of the picture and allow a BSA Committee dictate how the units are administered.  Chop the OA or turn it into some kind of money making labor force. Get rid of the classic BSA uniform or just wear polo shirts. Why have ranks at all and and just give everybody recognition.  Scout handbooks?  That's a preposterous idea since EVERYTHING is automated and can be accesse5on line.   Campgrounds and Scout Reservations are outdated and expensive, how about just creating a virtual world where you can go on a camp out without leaving your home.  How about Jamborees?  Wow the money that can be saved if we just have virtual Jamborees.   What are the "sacred cows "? Philmont, Sea Base, Northern Tier,  the Summit,  The OA, Exploring, Venturing, Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Commissioners, Executives................Maybe, just maybe, the kids who are members of the orginization should be asked what THEY want.  They weren't asked a few years ago about all of the changes made by some national committee that has resulted in our current state of affairs.  This is just food for thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminating the CO relationship would have the BSA moving toward the system used by the GSUSA, where every unit leader would be directly under the authority of the BSA.  The GSUSA blogs are packed with bitter complaints about how volunteers, who are required to sign some kind of contract-style document, are subjected to being dismissed from that organization by the local GSUSA executives and senior volunteers for "noncompliance".  I don't know much about GSUSA and am certain I have misstated the details -- but the essence is correct.  Scoutmasters and everyone else would be subject to removal from their positions.  Our CO loves the idea that we meet on Saturday mornings and do not sell popcorn (we use dues and fundraising receptions to raise our budget), but I don't know what my new BSA supervisors would think.   The CO system protects the independence of each unit's operating style because decisions are reviewed by our CO.  Be careful for what you wish for.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

Eliminating the CO relationship would have the BSA moving toward the system used by the GSUSA, where every unit leader would be directly under the authority of the BSA.  The GSUSA blogs are packed with bitter complaints about how volunteers, who are required to sign some kind of contract-style document, are subjected to being dismissed from that organization by the local GSUSA executives and senior volunteers for "noncompliance".  I don't know much about GSUSA and am certain I have misstated the details -- but the essence is correct.  Scoutmasters and everyone else would be subject to removal from their positions.  Our CO loves the idea that we meet on Saturday mornings and do not sell popcorn (we use dues and fundraising receptions to raise our budget), but I don't know what my new BSA supervisors would think.   The CO system protects the independence of each unit's operating style because decisions are reviewed by our CO.  Be careful for what you wish for.

You presume that the COs are actually engaged and it is operating that way.  I will say for my unit, but also my district, it is not.  There has been only 2 COs from my district that have attended a district or council wide meeting in the past three years (as admitted by our now past-District Chair).  Our CO has never met with nor spoken to anyone from council/District in the past 5 years.  The model is not working.  

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 Our CO loves the idea that we meet on Saturday mornings and do not sell popcorn (we use dues and fundraising receptions to raise our budget), but I don't know what my new BSA supervisors would think.  

This...especially the "do not sell popcorn" part.  (I'd expect that GSUSA leaders who say "we won't sell cookies" aren't leaders for much longer...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

The model is not working.

I agree.   That is the typical situation.  I readily admit that we have a great CO situation because we are new (a girl Troop) and carefully sought-out a great CO.  It's almost ridiculous how great they are -- the head church volunteer leader is the Troop Chair, the COR is the past head church leader and the pastor is our chaplain and has visited us on campouts (stayed a couple of nights at summer camp).  The whole church loves the our Scouts and even held a church wide fund-raising reception for us.

The question is whether you would prefer the situation you have that allows unit independence or a structure where a contract-designated supervisor is your district and council leadership.  Do you want them to be able to instruct you as to what you shall do?

As to the "sacred cow" status of COs, I never really thought this structure had that status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chisos said:

This...especially the "do not sell popcorn" part.  (I'd expect that GSUSA leaders who say "we won't sell cookies" aren't leaders for much longer...)

There are Girl Scout troops in my area who do not sell cookies and their leaders are not dismissed.  There have been BSA unit leaders dismissed for "non compliance".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...