Eagledad

We are on opposite spectrums of how we view the BSA. The posts balance those emotions. Barry

Ironically many of the parents I talked to are considering to not join because they fear that program will change as a result of membership changes. They know what the scouting program was, is it still there? It's hardly; even on the general publics radar. When the news shows rioters tearing down status to eras history, the effect of wins or losses of the BSA have little importance to their lives. Most folks want to get back to normalcy and the BSA hasn't lost that image. Barry

Again, you used the extreme impression of the effect, I have yet to meet anyone who believes in your context. My opinion is the general public believes the BSA has been caught in the tied of social political radicalism. If program hasn't changed, it is still a good program. Barry

Intolerant is to harsh a word for what you think they know. The know that the cultural elitist's have targeted the BSA. That may be good or bad, who knows in the politically corrosive cultural environment. But, they can't recite a personal example of intolerance. Just a generalization. Their image of the program is not tainted by personal experiences. Barry

Your speaking in an endless circle to continue appearing profound. Do you know how many adults today have even heard of the Dale case? I agree with Fred, had National just stuck with the 1960 program, the BSA would be fine. excepting for the last 10 years, every measurable national membership decline since the early 1960's can be traced to some major program change by National. I disagree with Colorado Co, the BSA program was and still is one of the best youth programs in the county. There is a difference between National business policies and program. If we separate each in the discussion, program always comes out as desirable choice for parents. While National's tinkering brought frustration, it was among the users struggling to make a go of a overly complicated program. Barry

LOL, right! Most of my posts on the issue of why scouts join and quit are based on polling and data acquired while I was active. But, many folks don't want to consider it because the data doesn't fit their opinion. Focusing on wrong things is in the eye of the poster. And forum thrive on it. But, my post that seems to have started this misdirection wasn't about changing the program, I was thinking more at how to re-market the Cub program in the short term as an opportunity of getting the kids back to some normalcy. Barry

We have always had to deal with nature of the program drop outs. I've never been able to add up specific numbers because National doesn't give them that accurately, but my gross number guess is that around 70% of Tigers drop out before reaching the troop age. If the main cause of dropping is the pandemic, then that is theoretically temporary. If on the other hand the problem is all the other changes in the last few years, then National has to re-image the cub program. This could be an opportunity to market Cubs as a great program to get kids back in the mix, or as you said, rebuilding friendships. I know parents today are very concerned about their kids isolation. Barry

Ignoring new scout recruiting for the moment, why are cub families not renewing while the troop families are? Barry

Why do you say this? Barry

There is probably some confusion between the trends of increased drop outs and the trends of lower new scout recruiting. However, even if troops keep their drop out rate to zero, their membership comes from the Cubs. Whatever happens now at the cub level is the future of troops within five years. Venture is in the same situation. Barry.

Our best DE was a retired engineer with 20 years as the SM or a top 5 level troop. He didn't need the money and had a good understanding of how to do the job..

Not really. The top dog is usually the one who speaks with knowledge and authority. When they speak, everyone listens. Sometimes that person is the council president. SE's are as good or bad as the people who select them, as well as the council presidents. My experience is SE's lack vision and Council Presidents tend to be narcissistic business leaders. SE's got the position as a reward for hard work (and little politics). Council presidents got there with a little bullying. Not always of course, but the system design encourages that kind of progression. Again, the issue is bringing in talented DE's. They just don't pay well to get such people. When I started volunteering at the District and Council levels, I found finally understood why God put such a high priority of "patience" on the qualities of love. Volunteers in general don't have the skills for their responsibilities, so they are driven by emotion. Emotion and vision don't mix. But, when you find one, then there is the issue of personality clashes. The worst pros are the ones who don't understand that giving other people credit for program success makes them look better, not weak. But, the competition for advancement is so strong that any exceptional effort by a volunteer scares them. I once watch a Council Field Director refuse the offer for FREE advertising in the local paper. We figured it was worth at least $15,000. But, he wanted the credit and couldn't see getting it. The system must work because he became an SE in another council a year later. I don't know the answers. I believe the hierarchy design is right. The problem is there aren't enough checks and balances for egos and ineptness. That is goes for volunteer positions as well. I watched one District Chairman build a tremendous scouting recruiting program only to have it wrecked in one year by a new chair that wasn't qualified to do anything except work under the CC at the cub level. Talent is out there, but a good recruiter is required. And that is rare. Barry

You are correct. ParkMan observed his DE directing (Micromanaging) committee Chair level volunteers to do specific tasks that they should be delegating to members in their committee. Even as a SM, I spent 50% of my time working with my staff to insure they understood our vision and were trained for their position. The CC did the same. A District Commissioner should know the heartbeat of the district by the monthly (bimonthly) reports from the DCs. If the DE knows of unit problems before the District Commissioner, that is a red flag that something isn’t working as trained. Or supposed to be trained. There is a training curriculum for District Chair positions. Maybe that is a problem area. Barry

You are assuming your DE was doing his job as designed. Maybe we should look at the DE job description before realigning what your are observing from your DE. Barry

I have a record of going beyond rearranging things at the council, district and unit levels. I find these stargazing prophecies out of touch with reality. RARELY, do volunteers have the skills of fund raising or even recruiting. In fact, most lack the skills to perform the task they given. In most cases, tradition keeps the machine working, just not efficiently. Efficiency seems to depend on the luck of skilled volunteers found. DEs are worth their weight in gold if the have vision of quality skills and ability to recruit. Fund raising always gets in their way, and ironically I find fund raising is easier when programs are functioning successfully.. Since quality volunteers rarely step up to take a district level task, the DE is left to finding those volunteers. There is the rub, if council doesn’t find and train a qualified DE, then low quality leadership follows all the way down to the patrol level. Yep, low quality SMs led to low quality patrol method. I agree with recruiting quality Unit commissioners is a step in the right direction, but I have rarely work with a Key 3, much less a District Commissioner skilled with both the task to recruit quality UCs, and train them . I have only met one such person. He ran a very successful commissioner program in Minneapolis 25 years ago. It’s one thing for someone from out of nowhere to recruit quality UCs, but they still have to be trained and directed. The best districts had strong SKILLED leadership. Most often business professionals with the needed skills. I even watched one district fire and recruit their DE. The District Chairman was a successful business man who was a great recruiter with no ego. He knew his limits and stayed out of other Responsibilities. If the volunteers couldn’t function sufficiently to support the program, he recruited help for them. The help generally had the skills and eventually took over the committee tasks. But such a person is rare because a DE with vision to recruit him is rare. At a National level, New ideas of the future have to realistically consider the average volunteers pool that will run these programs. My suggestion is better trained council leaders who understand the vision of the scout program. But I think that requires National level leadership who understand the vision of the scout program. Barry

I heard of a report 30 years ago of a bus in Philadelphia that was rear ended by a car. The driver of the bus said the bus barely moved when it was hit, so none of the 5 passengers were hurt. Yet, 36 injury reports were filed against the city within the day. Barry

Boonys are our troop hat. Indestructible, my sons and I still have ours 25 years later. They protect from the sun and Rain almost equally. Barry

It’s a good hat. To soft to get shaped by steam. The flexibility makes it durable on treks where it will get crushed in a tent. It keeps the elements off the head. Mine is old and still has original shape.

You're close. The elephant is also blind. Barry

No, it was during my early adulthood before I came back as an adult leader. And it might be that it was something local. But a scout had to be 14 to be eligible. Because they were selected by their peers, Arrowmen held higher respect than Eagles. Eagles was a personal thing. Barry

Two differences from my youth Scouting experience that really stuck out when I joined as an adult leader in 1990 was the attitudes toward Patrol Leaders and OA. OA had lowered it's age requirements allowing very immature candidate to attend ordeal. The rules and methods and expectations of Ordeal were lowered so the more immature pre-pubescents scouts could progress through the weekend successfully. As a result, OA has lost the respect of being an organization of Top Quality Scouts. The other difference was the expectation of Patrol Leader ages and experience. The average age of patrol leaders in the 70s was 15 with many driving. Most PLs had at least 2 years experience and really were considered the leaders of the PLC. Now the 14 year old SPL runs the troop of mostly 12 year old PLs. An observer of successful troop with an equal ratio of older and younger scouts will see a program that challenges all the scouts at all ages and maturity. Troop programs that loose the interest of older scout tend toward skills and advancement driven activities instead of an outdoor camping program. Just because a troop camps every month outdoors doesn't mean it is an outdoor active program. And that is a big difference. The average new Venturing Program starts because the scouts want more adventure and less skills/advancement activities. Youth tend to hang out where they can grow from challenges because they like the feeling of accomplishing difficult task. HICO_Eagle is right, our culture doesn't challenge youth anymore and they grow into immature adults as a result. Barry

I wonder if that meant the adult leaders could work on Eagle, not that the adults where scouts. My dad, who was a scout and SM in the 40's, said he doesn't recall any adults (over 17) working on Eagle. Barry

This is very educational and disturbing. But it kind of makes sense, adults who think they have a better idea and want to prove their theory by messing with an already successful design. We see it on this forum a lot. Scoutmasters who brag about a grand theory and work their program outside the box, only to disappear quietly. Even recently bragging adults showed how they fast tracked their new girls troop through the ranks and skills to show up the boy troops at competitions and to get the Eagle in minimal time. I'm guessing the top leaders at National have no accountability to hold them on any path. As a result. a monotonous traditional program, egos, and just plain bad managing skills steered the association down the lost road. Of course we all saw it. We talked about National's idiotic policies and changes, but I don't think we saw how bad it is. At least I didn't. They left just enough of the working machine alone so that their new ideas didn't bring the program to a complete halt. My eyes started to open with the addition of the Leadership Method. That is when I realized they were really lost, and it scared me that they were killing the game with a purpose. How did these people get hired. Barry

Obviously you have a strong opinion. But it's just an opinion. After watching the last national elections, my opinion is judgement will be whatever the national media says it is. Barry

You just described the values of the Scout Oath and Law quite well. Maybe we should just stick to scouting. Barry