fred8033

My wife and I were talking. Cancel culture is alive and well. Previous years it canceled conservatives. Now, the opposition is in power and progressives are being canceled. Soon everyone will be canceled. Failure To Stay Neutral ... IMHO, much of this is BSA's fault. BSA has repeatedly burnt goodwill by picking sides social debates. Orientation. Membership. DEI. Worse, BSA has been on both sides. In late 1990s and early 2000s, BSA alienated progressives with Dale v BSA. Then in 2010s to now, it has been with membership and DEI changes. BSA should have been staying neutral. "We leave that to our charter partners ... as an organization, BSA teaches universal values such as Trustworthy, Loyal, ... and encourages outdoor adventures.". Perhaps I'm naive. It feels like there is a dance to be done where BSA could have endorsed universal values without taking stances on the storm of social change.

I'm fine with that. I think skeptic is flagging the hypocrisy of first opening limits when it doesn't affect the state's finances, but then later tightening when the lawsuits start hitting state finances. The laws should be consistent. Cities, school districts and other organizations should also be facing the same liabilities.

This is a scouting forum and it's fair to express opinions and views. We should not assume who can and who can not wear a victim badge. Many people can claim victimhood as few people make it thru childhood unscared. Scouting is only one venue where bad people did bad things. Those bad people also existed in youth sports, schools, churches, police, medical and others.

100%. I always wonder how many parents have paid for their scout's registration, camping and event fees, but then wrote it off as a donation to the troop. ... BUT ... that's between them and the IRS. It's not troop business. I've seen a few cases where the parent solicits their employers charitable donations (sometimes matching; sometimes based on hours donated) and have used the funds 100% to benefit their own family directly; especially when they were one of the key unit leaders. The most egregious was a company donation used 100% to pay for the parent and scout's high adventure even though it was clear the company intended it to be a charitable donation and no one else from the troop went. It just felt wrong. IMHO, does it smell wrong? Can you tell all the parents and scouts in the troop that's how the funds will be used? Can you write a thank you note to the donor? ... "Dear ACME Inc, Thank you for your company donation. We greatly appreciate the donation and have credit Mr. W. E. Coyote's son's scout account to cover their future scouting costs. Thank you for supporting this scout. Sincerely, Mr. R. Runner" At minimum, your whole unit committee should know how it's being used. My gut says more than one person will say this is wrong.

@Eagle94-A1 is right. For advancement, read BSA/SA Guide To Advancement. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf Section 4.2.3.6 Fulfilling More Than One Requirement With a Single Activity "At times it may be appropriate for a Scout to apply what was done to meet one requirement toward the completion of another." Your situation is also explicitly answered. "Some requirements may have the appearance of aligning, but upon further examination differ. These seemingly similar requirements usually have nuances intended to create quite different experiences. The Communication and Citizenship in the Community merit badges are a good example. Each requires the Scout to attend a public meeting, but that is where the similarity ends. For Communication, the Scout is asked to practice active listening skills during the meeting and present an objective report that includes all points of view. For Citizenship in the Community, the Scout is asked to examine differences in opinions and then to defend one side. The Scout may attend the same public meeting, but to pass the requirements for both merit badges the Scout must actively listen and prepare a report, and also examine differences in opinion and defend one side."

Just thinking ... Just like current DOGE, I'm not sure it's really true savings. A good CE would raise at least his salary in donations to the council. Will reducing CEs reduce total donations? Do people donate because the top dog (the CE) asks for the donation ?

I'd hope. If the average salary cost is $50,000 (low considering we also have executives, directors, etc) and that a council probably needs at least three staff (probably way low), the per-scout council cost is at least $150. I assume the majority of council finances happen thru donation or endowments. Even then, council finances have never made sense to me. I don't understand how small councils can stay in business.

Agree with much that you wrote. Big dollar payouts to those in the legal system drove this case. But then again, that's how the system is setup. I watched the monthly bankruptcy billing invoices that paid firm partners far over a thousand an hour, other lawyers at $600 plus and hour and para-legal staff charging hundreds per hour. The whole case is about getting money out of deep pockets. Spent money won't be recovered. Courts approved the payments. The legal system won't start a major case against itself. Plus, it can be argued that this is the nature of complex cases especially when the Supreme Court changes case law interpretations. Legislative momentum for this has fallen off. Perhaps, a few states could start again. BUT, I really doubt it. It's old news at this point. Could very well be and it could be a good thing. It's more important to get youth outside having adventures than focusing on a single national scouting organization. This is where we all have different opinions. "My opinion" is that this case has never been about justice and accountability. This is about finding someone to blame for the ills of society.

I've heard lots of good exit interviews. The real challenge is reaching a meaningful solution such as just focus on outdoors, camping and fun. Then, let the rest happen naturally result.

What about 27 thru 82 years old ?

Age limit for Eagle ... I've turned the corner on this. I'm thinking this might be a good thing. * Some adults want to work on skills at the same time as their kids. ... Example - Karate black belt * Some adults want something in their life to work toward. * Some adults want to make up for opportunities lost as a kid. * Many adults are lonely and seeking friendship and social connections. IMHO, I don't see harm in this. Perhaps a correction to scale rank requirements should to age and capability. Perhaps keep the same.

My sons each have at least 100+ qualifying nights. If the troop is active, it's not hard. Opportunity exists for 7 years * 12 months * 2 nights a month = 168. Add summer camps ... now 203. Add other special high adventures. ... Two of my sons worked at scout camps. I swear one of my sons probably had 300 nights in a tent before he turned 18. 20 nights is low bar to pass.

Odds are it will work better or reasonably well. Individual YPT situations can be addressed. Also, similar YPT challenges exist in the other approaches too. IMHO, lots of this can be solved by focusing on activities and adventure more than the theoretically perfect way to run a troop. Follow YPT 100%. Beyond that, all the learning happens naturally by focusing on being an active, adventurous troop.

Though I always differ on "age based" and "traditional patrols" and NSPs, I 100% agree on a few key points. 100% agree ... Adults "screw things up. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.". Let the scouts decide ... with very minimal guidance ... and try to balance patrols (somewhat with many caveats). Even this point... I've often seen adults saying the scout's are deciding, but then I watch and the adults subvert the scout's independent decision making. Scouts want to be with their friends. The best patrols are where the patrol are (or become) friends and want to spend time together. ... Since the scouts plan, camp, cook, eat, sleep, game, and go to activities together, it really helps if the scouts naturally want to spend time together. IMHO, patrols start to fail when scout ditch their patrol to spend time with their friends in another patrol. Perhaps the scout should be in the other patrol then? IMHO, new scout patrols work well when 10+ join at the same time and NSPs are used to rapidly get scouts up to speed. But, there is no reason to keep those scouts in that patrol long term. Let the scout's decide.

Wow. So much of what you wrote seems extremely predictable. BUT, we've seen that happen many times in scouting. My scouting days are over mostly, but in my two decades as a leader, the registrar was critical to fixing so so so many issues. In fact, the registrar was pretty much the only person who could fix unit specific issues.