fred8033

"Youth run" is often in the eye of the beholder. The simple fact is the other troop is marketing better or people have a perception that the other troop offers better options and experiences. The issue is changing perceptions or building better relationships. IMHO, the troop shopping choice when "FINISHING" cub scouting is one of the most destructive things in scouting. It should be a continuum with each year having more and more experiences and more growth. No need to emphasize a big choice. No need to pit unit against unit. It's one of the reason we have mega-troops while many other troops are starving. Perhaps one of the best things that could happen in scouting is treating the units as one unit under a charter org and not separate units.

Not really council, but unit. With national not paying rent to councils and councils needing to reduce overhead ... and with more sales on-line (reduce overhead) ... maybe there is the slightest chance patches, advancement, uniforms and printed materials could become cheaper. I understand $10 for a scout handbook, but the leader materials should be free as PDFs.

I think your math is "reasonable" but off. I bet the stores break even if they average $100 per hour of sales. The issue is the profit. I'm betting the average profit is 50%. Some profit is higher. Even clearance is probably at least 20%. ... Space at $40k to $50k per year. With the store open 3,120 hours, that is space at $15 per hour roughly. Space at $15 per hour plus two employees at $13 per hour. Make it $20 per hour each with benefits. That's an overhead cost of $50 to $60 per hour. I'm betting $100 sales has store breaking even. Annually, breaking event at $300k of sales every year.

Councils will need to shed assets. Ideally, shed office buildings to save money Ideas If offices are needed, put those offices on "camp" properties. Move as much of operations "on-line" as possible. Most is already there. Re-partner with "Walgreens" or another vendor to sell scout shirts again. ... I really think scout shirts and stuff in neighborhood stores was a big-time marketing tool. My first exporsure to scouts was at the local five & dime with their four/five feet of scout stuff. Pros Save money on facility, staff, etc Pro - moves money from offices buildings to "camp" properties. Promotes using the camps. Re-emphasizes BSA is an outdoor program. Cons More distinace for some people. Fewer meeting locations. Negatively affect perceptions of "careers" as BSA staff. But this could be good too. Reasoning Councils are now losing revenue from national for renting scout store space and paying national employees Vast majority of scout parents never use the council "office" buildings Most advancement is almost fully online Eagle paperwork is almost ready to be fully online. Or, could be fully done at district level. Shopping is now mostly online. Most importantly, shopping now does not contribute rent to council offices Rechartering could be fully done online. Too much time is spent in-city office areas. BSA is program is structured around the outdoors. Let's re-emphasize it.

Absolutely true. Many volunteers WANT to be involved even if they don't have the skill. Districts rarely do the majority of their roles well. Way too consistently scouting under delivers it's promise. Scouting often does a really poor job of teaching leadership in a situation that is natural for teaching leadership. Aka pulling defeat from victory. There is not much a district volunteer can do to significantly drive membership. FOCUS ON DELIVERING THE PROMISE The promise of scouting is adventure, friendship and skills. That's why scouts get involved. Activities that scouts WANT to be involved in. Camp outs that are new and fresh. Adults out of the scout's hair so they can develop friendships with other scouts. The BSA "goals" inspire adults, not kids. The goals (physical fitness, citizenship, character, leadership, etc) are reasons the parents should support their kids in the program. The goals provide zero incentive for the scouts to be involved. Background - I remember my twelve year old son try to sign up for Philmont because his SM inspired the scouts showing his gear, pictures and the stories of adventure. He made it sound cool. ... Now if he would have killed all energy if he started talking about character, physical fitness, how to lead the others. STOP TRYING TO TEACH THAT WHICH IS HARD TO TEACH Scoutmaster minute (60 seconds) is about as much character and leadership training a young scout can take. The rest of the program should be about where are we going, what are we doing, who's bringing the food, what's the game, etc. My reasoning is that much of what scouting tries to teach is best taught by not teaching. Scouting is about learning by doing. Specifically, scouts will learn a huge amount about leadership by trying to get eight of their friends to agree on a menu plan. A very very few words of guidance by the SM goes a huge way. My suggestion is that we tell our volunteers to fully focus on delivering the promise. Adventure. Friendships. Skills. Let the "goal" lessons be learned naturally without setting up the scouts or explicitly trying to teach it. A few few few short words goes a long way. Baden-Powell said advancement was the natural result of being involved. My view is that the "goals" are the natural result of delivering our promise to the scouts.

Absolutely. Without any doubt in my mind.

Two year rule ... My fear is driving kids out of scouting. The two year rule minimizes tenting options. As some kids are immature or even just jerks, I could see good kids leaving scouting because their patrol does not have enough kids in their age bracket to mix up the tenting partners. As much as I like scouting, I would be completely reasonable for a kid to leave scouting if his only option was six years of sharing tents with someone he does not want. Your discussion is one of the reasons I like letting scouts pick their own patrol, but starting them together when they join. Scouts tend toward their own ages / grades. It maximizes tenting options.

I must disagree. G2SS is close to the exact set of youth protection rules I'd promote. Of course, there are entries I roll my eyes at. My repeated example is playing laser tag or even paint ball. Those two games are the modern day version of playing tag. If when scouting can't help teach responsibility in games like that, then scouting is making itself an anachronism. Worse, our scouts have to pretend not to be scouts or not to be part of scouting at that moment to play laser tag or paint ball. But even as I get frustrated with those two entries ... and others ..., scouting is much better off because of G2SS.

That does sound like a good idea. Though it might be viewed as the grey area, it's about the amount of difference where it would be raising flags for me.

GOOD - Names and troop numbers were obscured to make anonymous. GOOD - Everyone created their own rank 1 to 10 and then we compared our numbers and defended our vote. Some people adjusted their number after. It was fairly clean. BAD - Many of the nominations were still easily identifiable even without names. But anonymous did clearly help. BAD - Nominations were strongly influenced by how much effort the person put into nominating the person. Reference letters. ... RECOMMENDATION - When a nomination is made, leave time to help improve / groom the nominations to the same level of polish, detail and references. This would help offset where the result is significantly influenced by the effort of the nominator.

LOL ... I've been on too many camp outs with scouts. Scouts are not angels. Also, SPLs are not angels; nor are SPLs usually long experienced leaders. Key point is G2SS is adult responsibility.

That was a natural response. Scouts (and all youth) learn very quick to give deference to adults. I can't speak for your troop, but most scout programs emphasize the difference. I'm betting each and every scout can tell multiple stories of where an adult used his position (or age) to put a scout in his place. I know that "adult interaction" is a method in scouts, but I really think we need to be more careful of when and how that occurs. In fact, we need to interact in such a way that the program grows the backbone of the scouts to stand up for what is right. I remember our first scoutmaster did the best. I swear he rarely told the scouts what to do. It was always a question. What's next? What's your plan? How did that work out for you? How do you think the other scout felt? Or it was an atta-boy. Nice job. That worked out well. Good job getting their attention. In addition, the scout-adult interaction was minimized. SM represented the adults. A few ASMs. Beyond that, adults mixed with adults. Scouts with scouts.

Bigger troops are not the issue. My ideal troop size is 35 to 50. Baden-Powell said 32, but corrected for society changes, I think larger troops of 75 to 100 are okay. One great benefit is to do more campouts / activities and a greater variety of campouts / activities. The issues are ... Not recognizing long-term existing BSA policies, etc. MBC is not a troop position and has never been a troop position. MBC has always been a council approved position. MBC app allows to say what troops to mentor, but also has bold stating counselors are encouraged to work beyond their troop. Troops encouraging parents in troop to council for their child's troop lessons the MBC availability for everyone else. It develops a mentality of Trump's "troop first". Discussion attitude reflects "too bad, so sad". Sort of like well maybe you should have joined a large troop then. Everyone else is out of luck. If large troops can take advantage of having a large pool of MBCs, maybe smaller troops then should also subvert MB program by allowing their adults to register for 10 to 20 MBs each. That way they have coverage too. IMHO ... the whole value of the program is getting the scouts out of their comfort zone and learning to reach out. Some knowledge benefit, but I see it more as about scouts taking control of their advancement. We are already have too many scouts that see MBs has jumping hoops without much benefit. We already have too many adults offering MB cards like they are hoops without much benefit. If troops maintain their own MB counselors, I really begin to question the value of the program. If I do have an issue with larger troops ... Large troops add bureaucracy to enable the size of the troop. I often see this as subverting the program. An example of this is I've often heard larger troop scoutmasters say they don't have time to work their own scouts. Or SMCs get delayed or scheduled because of the 80 to 100 rank advancements each year. Procedures get created for how to advance. Or an advancement chair begins to own the MB program instead of a friendly conversation with the SM. I often wonder if advancement should be majorly changed. Rank reflects number of camp outs / activities. Example --> First class scout requires 30 nights of camping. Eagle scouts should have 100+ nights of boy scout camping. MBs are fully troop sponsored. Example --> Canoeing MB is a canoing campout of 30 miles and two overnights ? Biking is a biking camp out with 50 miles and two overnights plus three pre-campout practice runs. MBs could reflect the program planning guides that suggest troop activities. No need for special MBCs for most MBs. Or troop can bring in special skilled adults and the troop adults have the registration / sign off. I've mostly mentored within my own troop too, but I've also bent over backwards, driven many miles and spent weekends helping other scouts with the same MBs.

Silence falls on the scouts as the brave young girl launches an arrow true, spearing the large troop, custom-wrapped, double-axle trailer. Hushed tones carry her name ... mocking jay.

This MB discussion is very disheartening.

No. I meant that exact situation. Scout's should be reaching out to MBCs, not handed to them on a silver plate. It subverts the program. Scouts should be experiencing MB programs in many different environments and styles. At some point, I question the MB program and wonder if troops should fully focus on skills at each rank ... plus nights of camping ... and plus leadership. Maybe every 5 more nights of camping could replace one MB.

Troop MBCs make me question the value of the merit badge program. I'm okay with the troop having some MBCs and such. But when a troop has an inventory of MBCs for key badges, ... imho ... it really hurts the value of the MBC program. The MBC program is about getting the scout out of his comfort zone and learning something new ... AND working with someone new. When the scout mostly works with troop MBCs, the MBC program really changes from an individual scout focus into a troop run program. IMHO, it fully subverts the program.

I hope that's not the future, but I understand the fear.

District camporees are only going away in name only. Camporees will still exist. It's just that council activities team will host camporees. IMHO, this is better because camporees were never well coordinated between districts and some districts did not do them well. IMHO, this is also good as you will ... hopefully ... get better attended camporees and a larger mix of camporees from which to select. Also, this might better leverage council camps. For example, our council has six camps. Three local. Two within reasonable drive. One that is three to four hour drive. Instead of each district reserving part of the local camps and running separate camporees, the whole camp could be leveraged for a camporee. Instead of a strong inference that you attend your district's camporee that happens once a year on a specific weekend and usually at the same place, you can now select the right location and right weekend that would be a better fit.

I disagree. Much of the district structure has been broken and broken for a long long time. People expect quality and it's not there. Today, you can one chance. Maybe two. Then, people move on. I often think about why I attend round table. I really do it to see my friends. Beyond that, there is no reason to attend. In fact, I have several reasons to NOT attend. One main reason is it can be a monotonous, re-hashing of the same content. ... Years ago ... 18+ years ago or so ... I did anything I could to avoid going to cub break outs. They were bad. Bad created poor attendance. Poor attendance meant if I left the room, 25% to 50% of the audience would be leaving ... in a district with 20+ packs. What some may call a power grab, I see as addressing quality failures. ... in fact ... the most important district role is done the worst: unit commissioner. Eighteen years as a unit leader (in different roles) and we've never had a unit commissioner visit. Maybe a slight interaction, but absolutely zero useful. IMHO, districts should be relieved because for far too long districts have looked for warm bodies to staff roles, training, activities, advancement, etc. IMHO, that was just wrong. We need to look for quality or re-engineer to create structures that promote quality. From what I see, districts are not going away. It's just that everything in the district will be targeted at direct unit support. aka commissioner service. http://www.northernstar.org/Portals/2/Documents/2019-11_Putting-Units-First-Presentation.pdf

Post deleted. It was started days ago and is now out-of-sync with the thread.

Post deleted.

It's the first required reference on the Eagle app. Plus, parents spend more time than anyone else with the scout. They often can provide useful insight.

As a parent of four sons, I can very much understand the urge to not write a reference letter ... at times. Sadly, I've seen this too. Often, it's a parent who really wants the kid to earn Eagle and exceed and pursue every goal. It damages the relationship between kid and parent. IMHO, parents are much more happy with their kids when the parent backs off and lets the kid find his own path.

Our patrols have periodically sampled remaining electives to help individuals advance, but it's always been by reviewing the scout handbooks.